uv-pack_islands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation of UV islands but does not clarify side effects (e.g., modification of existing UVs, scaling or moving islands), selection requirements, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the operation, delivering the core purpose instantly.

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 mutability and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits preconditions (e.g., selected object), detailed parameter behavior, and any note about how the packing affects existing UV islands, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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% (the tool description mentions neither parameter). The schema itself provides titles for 'margin' and 'object', but the description adds no semantic value or usage hints, leaving the agent to infer parameter roles solely from the schema's brief titles.

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 (Pack), the resource (UV islands), and the target outcome (fit the [0,1] UV space). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from UV unwrapping or scaling tools like uv-unwrap, uv-smart_unwrap, and uv-average_islands_scale.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why an agent might prefer packing over other UV operations.

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