create_uv_map

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without revealing side effects, requirements (e.g., object must exist), whether the new UV map becomes active, or error handling. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and target. No extraneous words, and it conveys the essential purpose without ambiguity. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the effect on existing UV maps, whether the new map becomes active, or any prerequisites. Without annotations, the agent lacks critical context for correct invocation.

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. It mentions the mesh object but does not explain the required 'object_name' parameter beyond the obvious, nor does it mention the optional 'name' parameter (default 'UVMap'). No parameter details or format are provided, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('UV map'), and specifies the target ('mesh object'). It clearly distinguishes from tools like list_uv_maps (listing) and set_active_uv_map (setting active), though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly. The phrase 'new UV map' implies creation versus modification, which adds clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like unwrap_uv or project_from_view. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., mesh must be selected or exist), nor any indication of alternatives. The agent is left to infer context.

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