uv_unwrap_island_packer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behaviors: normalizing to 0-1 space, guaranteeing zero overlap, rotating islands, and adding gutter margins. It does not mention output format, error behavior, or whether the input payload must include 3D geometry vs. already-extracted islands.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action, defines the input scope, output space, and key constraints. The cost note is concise and adds operational context without bloating the definition.

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?

This is a specialized 3D geometry tool with a generic string payload and no output schema, so the description should explain the expected input format and what the tool returns. It does neither, leaving an agent to guess how UV islands are encoded and what the atlas output looks like.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-specific detail. The generic 'payload' and 'paymentSignature' schema descriptions are present, but neither the description nor the schema explains what payload structure the UV packing tool expects.

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 uses a specific verb ('Packs') and a precise resource ('3D texture coordinate UV islands'), clearly stating the operation and output ('normalized 0-1 atlas'). This distinguishes it from sibling 3D tools such as optimize_3d_mesh or convert_gltf_to_obj, which address different mesh operations.

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 described purpose implies when the tool should be used: when UV islands need to be packed into a non-overlapping atlas. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tools should be preferred for other UV or mesh tasks.

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