uv-layer_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Create a UV layer' without revealing how the do_init parameter affects the operation, which object is targeted, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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, which is appropriately concise in structure. However, it sacrifices essential content for brevity, making it less useful than it could be. It's not bloated, but it's too sparse.

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 tool's context in UV layer management, with parameters like object and do_init, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention that it can initialize from existing UVs, that it operates on a mesh object (default active), or any return or side-effect info. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no parameter documentation. The schema only provides names, types, and defaults (e.g., name default 'UVMap', do_init default true), but the description fails to explain what these do or why they matter. The agent gets no help in understanding parameter semantics.

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 identifies the action (create) and resource (UV layer), but it's extremely terse and doesn't provide any additional context that distinguishes it from siblings like uv-layer_set_active or uv-layer_delete. It's minimally adequate but not informative.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a clear decision framework.

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