remove_uv_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'delete UV layer.' It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the object's active UV map. This is minimal and uninformative.

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 extremely concise—a single short sentence. While there is no verbosity, it is too sparse to be considered well-structured or appropriately sized for an API description, lacking any breakdown of behavior or parameters.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description is not complete. It does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, how it interacts with object data, or what the expected outcome is beyond the obvious. Missing context could confuse an agent.

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?

The schema has two parameters (name, object) with no descriptions, and the description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they relate to the deletion. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 action ('delete') and the resource ('UV layer'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_uv_map' and 'list_uv_maps' but lacks additional context that might clarify subtle differences.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename or clear. There is no mention of prerequisites, situations where deletion is appropriate, or consequences.

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