uv-average_islands_scale

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and requirements. It states it averages scale but does not mention that this modifies the mesh, whether it is destructive, or if any selection is needed. The user is left unaware of the mutation's impact.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, earning top marks for efficiency.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining expected behavior, reversibility, and setup. It does none of this, so the tool is under-specified for reliable invocation.

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?

The only parameter ('object') is given a title in the schema but no description in the tool description. The description does not explain what 'object' means or its optionality (defaults to active). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to enhance parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Average') and the target ('texel density / scale of all UV islands'), which is a specific operation distinct from siblings like uv-pack_islands or uv-unwrap. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the scope (mesh object) and how it differs from other UV tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uv-pack_islands or uv-smart_unwrap. The description does not mention context, preconditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when 'averaging' is appropriate.

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