uv.cube_project

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

No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details. It does not specify whether existing UVs are replaced, if the tool is destructive, or prerequisites like requiring a UV map. The only hint is that it operates on selected faces.

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 sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it may be undersized given the tool's complexity and the number of sibling UV tools, missing critical information.

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 complexity of UV projection and the presence of similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what cube projection does, how cube_size affects the result, or what the output is. Without an output schema, the agent lacks essential context.

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 does not explain the parameters. The 'object' and 'cube_size' parameters are not described, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the mesh object or the effect of cube_size.

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 (cube-project) and the resource (selected faces onto the UV map). It distinguishes from sibling UV tools like uv.unwrap, uv.smart_unwrap, and uv.sphere_project, which have different projection methods.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uv.sphere_project or uv.smart_unwrap. There is no mention of scenarios where cube projection is appropriate or when not to use it.

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