Set face UVs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether existing UVs are overwritten, whether the operation is undoable, what permissions or selection state it needs, or how failures behave. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial disclosure gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the format rules. No filler; each sentence adds a distinct invocation detail, though the terse style could label the cube/mesh cases more explicitly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description handles the uv/uvs formats adequately but omits the meaning of the required 'target' parameter and any behavioral context (overwrite semantics, undo). It is minimally sufficient but leaves clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only 'face' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for 'uv' (cube pixel rect) and 'uvs' (mesh alignment or vertex_key map), which is valuable, but 'target' remains completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a required parameter ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource with a scope constraint: 'Set UVs on one face.' The cube-vs-mesh format split further clarifies the operation, but it never names or contrasts itself with the obvious sibling bb_auto_uv, so the agent must infer when this manual tool is preferred over automatic UV generation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly guides invocation by telling the caller which parameter to use for cubes ([x1,y1,x2,y2]) versus meshes (aligned uvs or a vertex_key map), which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like bb_auto_uv, so selection guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.