smart_uv_project

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

The description explains the effect of two parameters (angle_limit controls island splitting, island_margin adds padding), but does not disclose broader behavior such as whether it creates a new UV layer, overwrites existing UVs, or requires the mesh to be in a specific mode. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it only partially meets it.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, explaining a parameter, and explaining another parameter. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficient with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter effects. However, it omits information about prerequisites (e.g., object selection, mode requirements) and does not reference sibling tools or provide usage context, which leaves some gaps for 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for angle_limit and island_margin beyond the schema defaults, explaining their roles. However, the required 'name' parameter is not described, and the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Automatically UV unwrap a mesh') and the method ('using Smart UV Project'). It implies the target is a mesh via the 'name' parameter, but does not explicitly state which object is operated on. This distinguishes it from generic unwrap tools but lacks specificity on the object context.

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 vs. sibling tools like uv_unwrap, uv_smart_unwrap, or uv_project_from_view. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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