create_uv_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('adds a UV map') but doesn't say what happens if the object isn't a mesh, whether an existing UV map with the same name is overwritten or auto-renamed (relevant given the 'UVMap' default), or whether the operation is reversible. Nothing is misleading, but behavior is essentially undisclosed.

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 single sentence has no fluff and is front-loaded with the core action. But the brevity reads as under-specification rather than efficient compression: for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is too thin to be 'appropriately sized.'

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), which reduces the burden, but the description still omits essential call information: the meaning of `name` is unexplained, collision behavior with existing UV maps is unknown, and no error conditions are noted. With no annotations and an empty parameter schema, these omissions leave an agent guessing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps the `object` parameter by specifying the target is a mesh, but it never mentions the `name` parameter—its meaning, format, or 'UVMap' default. The added value over the bare schema is marginal (a single noun, 'mesh'), which is insufficient for two otherwise undocumented parameters.

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 ('Add') with a concrete resource ('UV map') and target ('mesh object'), making the core action unambiguous. It doesn't, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `smart_uv_project`, which also produces a UV map on a mesh, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus `smart_uv_project` (projection-based UV creation) or `get_uv_maps` (reading existing maps). No prerequisites are stated—e.g., that `object` must reference an existing mesh—and no error cases or alternatives are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and one-line description.

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