unwrap

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

Annotations already declare this as a mutating, destructive, non-openWorld operation. The description goes further and discloses the returned metrics (islands, used area, faces outside 0..1, degenerate faces, texel_density_spread with interpretation), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It stops short of warning that existing UV data is overwritten, but the return-value detail is a genuine addition beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first two words, then packs method, parameter and return semantics densely with no filler sentences. Slightly run-on, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, method selection, the sibling alternative and the return metrics, which is close to complete. The only meaningful omission is an explicit statement that the operation replaces any existing UV map.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic load and mostly succeeds: it defines angle (larger = fewer, larger islands), margin (gap between islands, 0..1), pack (arranges islands in the 0..1 square) and the method enum meanings. Only the required names parameter is left implicit, which is a minor gap given its self-evident meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Make a UV map") and distinguishes itself from the sibling check_mesh, which reads an existing map rather than creating one. The distinction is clear enough that an agent can route between the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the different unwrap methods (smart, angle, cube, cylinder, sphere) and routes the agent to check_mesh when a UV map already exists. It provides clear context for selecting a method, though it stops short of explicit when-not or prerequisite rules.

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