blender_manage_uv

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds no further behavioral context beyond the listed operations. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not elaborate on what gets destroyed or any side effects.

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 very concise: three lines covering operations, usage guidelines, and exclusions. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary detail.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of actions and usage scope. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., object must be a mesh) and does not clarify return values or side effects, which would enhance completeness.

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 does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so no improvement over baseline.

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 tool handles UV mapping operations like marking seams, unwrapping, and layer management. It distinguishes itself from UV painting by referencing blender_execute_operator, but does not differentiate from other sibling tools like blender_edit_mesh or blender_modify_object.

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 description explicitly states when to use ('for algorithmic UV unwrapping or UV layer management') and when not to use ('for UV painting'), with a direct alternative (blender_execute_operator). This provides clear guidance.

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