Auto-unwrap a mesh using smart projection with adjustable angle limit to control UV island seams.
Auto UV unwrap using smart project. Angle limit in radians (default ~66 degrees).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | Yes | ||
| angle_limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions the angle limit and its default. It does not state that this operation mutates the object's UV layout, whether existing UV maps are replaced, whether a mesh is required, or any effects on the object. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs an operation.
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 brief and front-loaded, with no filler. Both sentences carry useful information: the operation/method and the key parameter detail. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse given the missing behavioral context.
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 mutating tool with no annotations, a required object parameter, and an output schema, the description omits essential operational context: what object refers to, whether the object must have a mesh, and what happens to existing UV maps. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still lacks the preconditions and side effects needed for correct use.
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 does add useful meaning for angle_limit by specifying radians and the approximate default of 66 degrees. However, the required object parameter is not explained at all beyond its schema type, leaving a key part of the invocation underspecified.
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 clearly states the operation: auto UV unwrapping using the smart project method. It identifies the resource (UVs) and the technique, making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling UV-related tools like create_uv_map, but the name and phrasing are specific enough.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_uv_map or pack_images. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection requirements, or situations where a different unwrap method would be appropriate. The usage context is entirely left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.