uv_unwrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the return summary (islands, packing efficiency, stretch, texel-density spread), but says nothing about side effects such as creating/overwriting UV channels, destructiveness to existing UVs, or which objects are affected when 'objects' is omitted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the useful return summary. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned, and it clarifies usage relative to siblings. It is slightly incomplete for a zero-annotation mutation tool in that it omits any warning about overwriting existing UV data or default object selection.

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 83%, above the 80% threshold, so the schema already documents angle, objects, lightmap, texture_size and island_margin. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline, so 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb ('UV-unwrap') plus resource ('meshes') with a stated scope ('for export/painting'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting presets/texture_maps need no UVs and make_game_asset unwraps internally, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear when-not-to-use guidance ('presets and texture_maps work without UVs; make_game_asset unwraps by itself') and a usage context (export/painting). It stops short of naming a preferred alternative path for pure inspection (e.g. uv_report), so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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