uv-sphere_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation modifies and likely overwrites existing UV coordinates, whether it requires a specific edit mode, or whether the change is reversible. This is a significant omission for a mutating UV operator.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the operation and target and earns every word.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description plus schema title provides the minimum viable understanding: selected faces, UV map, sphere projection, and the optional object override. However, it misses side effects, mode requirements, and operational context, so it remains only minimally complete.

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 tool description does not explain the optional "object" parameter. The schema title says "Mesh object to project (defaults to active)", which helps, but the description itself adds no parameter semantics or clarification beyond the schema field.

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 uses a specific verb ("Sphere-project") plus a target ("selected faces") and recipient ("UV map"), clearly identifying the operation. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling projection and unwrap tools such as uv-cube_project or uv-smart_unwrap.

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 implies that selected faces are the input but gives no guidance about when to use sphere projection versus alternative UV mapping methods, required modes, or selection prerequisites. It does not name alternatives or provide when/when-not guidance.

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