unwrap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (islands, used area, faces outside 0..1, degenerate faces, texel_density_spread with its scale), which is valuable. However, it never states that this writes UV data onto the named meshes or what happens to pre-existing UV maps, a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Dense but well front-loaded: the core action comes first, then method semantics, then parameter meanings, then returns. Every clause carries information, though the single run-on paragraph and parenthetical-heavy style reduce readability slightly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter meaning and return values well, which is exactly what's needed. It is missing only the side-effect statement (that UVs are written to the given meshes) and any precondition on object selection.

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, and it largely does: it explains method's six enum values, angle's dual meaning ('larger angle gives fewer, larger islands' for smart, 'angle-based unwrap' otherwise), margin's 0..1 range, and pack's purpose. Only 'names' is left implicit, which is why this is not a 5.

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+resource ('Make a UV map') and then enumerates the methods it supports, so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_mesh ('gives the same numbers for an existing UV map'), making selection unambiguous.

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 per-method explanations (smart vs angle vs cube/cylinder/sphere) and the check_mesh reference give real context for choosing this tool and its mode. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance (e.g., whether objects must be selected or whether existing UVs are overwritten).

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