unwrap_uv

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

With no annotations provided, the description should carry the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Unwrap UVs') without mentioning that this modifies the mesh's UV data, whether it is destructive to existing UVs, or whether any services are called. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond the bare operation makes it inadequate 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, which is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; it lacks essential details while being short. It does not front-load critical information like parameter guidance or usage context beyond the core action, so it barely meets the minimum for this dimension.

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 tool has five parameters, no annotation coverage, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description must compensate substantially. It does not explain what the method is, what angle_limit or island_margin do, or whether correct_aspect has any effect. The presence of an output schema does not mitigate the missing parameter semantics. This leaves the tool underdocumented for an agent to call correctly.

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 five parameters with zero description coverage, yet the description adds no meaning to any of them. It mentions 'specified method' but does not explain method values or any of the other parameters (angle_limit, island_margin, correct_aspect). An agent has no idea what these parameters control or how to set them appropriately, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 tool unwraps UVs for a mesh object with a specified method, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_uv_map (creating a new UV map) and project_from_view. The verb 'unwrap' is explicit and the target resource 'UVs' is clear. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 project_from_view or create_uv_map. It does not mention prerequisites, like whether the object must be in edit mode or have an existing UV map, nor does it suggest typical use cases. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage from the action description alone.

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