set_active_uv_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the action 'set' without any side effects, requirements, error handling, or what happens if the specified UV map does not exist. It does not contradict annotations (there are none), but it provides essentially no behavioral context beyond the bare action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with two required parameters, the description is inadequate. It omits essential context such as whether the object must have an existing UV map with the given name, what happens on failure, and any side effects on the viewport or scene. While an output schema exists, the description itself leaves the calling agent without enough information to anticipate behavior or handle errors.

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% and the schema itself contains only minimal titles with no descriptions or types. The description adds no information about the parameters 'object_name' or 'uv_map_name', failing to compensate for the lack of schema detail. The agent receives no semantic guidance for filling these fields.

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 'set' with a clear resource 'active UV map on the specified object'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_uv_map or list_uv_maps, as it focuses on switching the active mapping rather than creating or listing. The one-sentence definition leaves no ambiguity about its core function.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., object must already have UV maps) or conditions that would make it preferable to create_uv_map or list_uv_maps. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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