uv.unwrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details such as required mode (edit mode), prerequisite seams, destructiveness, effects on UV layers, and behavior when no faces are selected or no seams exist.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include essential context without compromising conciseness.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain prerequisites (seams, selection, mode), differences between methods, or what happens under edge cases, making it incomplete for a tool with three parameters and multiple siblings.

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 adds no information about parameters (method, object, island_margin). Agents must rely solely on schema titles and enum values, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 verb 'unwrap', the resource 'selected faces', and the condition 'along existing seams'. This distinguishes it from sibling UV tools like smart_unwrap or cube_project.

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 use when seams are pre-existing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., uv.smart_unwrap for automatic seams). No when-not or alternative naming.

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