blender_ai_auto_uv

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 does disclose the core behavior and projection methods, but it does not mention side effects such as whether an existing UV layer is replaced, whether the mesh must be in a particular mode, or what the operation returns.

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 that names the operation, methods, and key controls without any filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary detail. Every part earns its place.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema is largely sufficient to select and invoke the tool. It lacks explicit return-value or caveat information, but the core effect and parameter semantics are adequately covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mirrors several key parameters (angle limit, island margin, area weighting, aspect correction) but adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Generate UV maps') against a specific resource ('a mesh'), and names the exact projection methods (SMART or LIGHTMAP) and tunable controls. This is clearly distinguishable from any sibling UV-related or mesh-modification tool.

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 intended use case is explicit: use this when you need to generate or update UV maps on a mesh via SMART or LIGHTMAP projection. No alternative UV-unwrap sibling exists in the tool list, so not naming alternatives is acceptable; the context is clear even without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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