palette_uv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the effect on UVs and the coordinate convention (row 0 at top), but says nothing about prerequisites (does a UV layer need to exist?), whether existing UVs are overwritten, or what happens when no faces are picked.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect; the trailing palette-atlas clause earns its place by scoping usage. Minor density in the cell/grid coordinate explanation but nothing wasted.

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 5-parameter, 0%-coverage tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two most important parameters well but leaves three undocumented, including the cryptic `where` filter. An agent can invoke it in the common case but may guess at the rest.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `cell` ([column, row], row 0 at top) and `grid` ([columns, rows]) meaningfully, but leaves `object`, `uv_layer`, and especially `where` (an opaque anyOf object/null) undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('point the UVs of the picked faces at the centre of one cell of a palette texture') plus the resulting effect ('the face takes that flat colour'). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like paint_faces and unwrap via the 'palette-atlas styles' framing, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It gives an implied use case — 'For palette-atlas styles (one small colour grid image shared by all models)' — which tells the agent the workflow context. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for other coloring approaches.

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