uv-unwrap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it operates on selected faces and existing seams, but does not mention side effects (e.g., changes to UV layout, potential distortion with CONFORMAL method) or prerequisites (e.g., faces must be selected, seams must be marked). This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies UV data.

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 extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise, but it is too terse to convey essential information. It front-loads the core action but omits necessary detail, so it does not earn its place as a standalone guide.

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 complexity (3 parameters including an enum, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters affect the operation, what the expected output is (UV coordinates), or any limitations (e.g., requires selection, requires seams). For a UV editing tool, the description leaves too much unspecified.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'existing seams' but does not explain the meaning of 'method' (ANGLE_BASED vs CONFORMAL) or 'island_margin' (spacing in UV space), leaving the agent to guess. The enum values are not documented.

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 'Unwrap the selected faces along existing seams' with a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like uv-smart_unwrap or uv-cube_project. It implies a standard UV unwrapping operation on existing seams, which is distinct enough for an expert.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uv-smart_unwrap or uv-cube_project. The description implies it is for manually seamed meshes, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternative tools for different scenarios.

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