blender_msfs_livery_export_uv_layout

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that an image is produced; it does not mention file-overwrite behavior, output format derivation, prerequisites such as an existing UV map, or error conditions.

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?

A single focused sentence with no filler; the verb and outcome are front-loaded. It is concise but stops short of providing structured context that would make it richer.

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 a five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-sentence description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not explain how the output image is written, what controls the result, or what state is required on the Blender object.

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 schema already documents every parameter (object_name, output_path, resolution, fill_opacity, line_thickness). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the general purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action ('Export UV layout') and resource ('UV layout as an image'), with an explicit purpose ('painting reference in external editors'). This distinguishes it from nearby livery tools like blender_msfs_livery_export_textures, which handle actual textures rather than a UV layout image.

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 phrase 'for painting reference in external editors' gives a clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unmistakable.

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