uv-set_seams

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly indicates the tool mutates seam flags, but it does not mention side effects, default object behavior, selection requirements, or whether existing seams are preserved or replaced.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core operation, though it is too terse to provide richer context.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the one-line description leaves the agent without enough context to confidently invoke the tool. It omits usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral caveats, making it minimally adequate at best.

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%, and the description adds no explanation of the `edges`, `action`, or `object` parameters. The parameter titles and enum in the schema are the only source of semantic information, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (seam edge flags) and lists the four supported mutation operations (set, add, remove, clear), making the tool's function clear. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like uv-seams, but the uv- prefix and mutation verbs provide enough context.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uv-seams or uv-report. It does not mention prerequisites like edit mode, existing seam state, or when SET vs ADD/REMOVE is appropriate.

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