uv.smart_unwrap

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'angle-based auto seams' but does not state whether existing UVs are overwritten, what happens to non-selected faces, or side effects like modifying mesh data. The description is insufficient for a projection 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 sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient, though adding structure (e.g., breaking down purpose and parameters) would improve clarity without lengthening it much.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and empty parameter descriptions, the tool lacks essential context. An agent would not know the effect of angle_limit or island_margin, nor how the result differs from other UV unwraps. The description is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of parameters like object, angle_limit, or island_margin. Without parameter clarification, the agent cannot accurately set values. This is a critical 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 clearly states the tool performs a UV project on selected faces using angle-based auto seams, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling UV tools like uv.unwrap, uv.cube_project, and uv.sphere_project by highlighting the automatic seam detection.

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 usage for face selection with auto seams, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like uv.unwrap (manual seams). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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