smart_uv_tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists operations and some parameter details but omits critical information: whether changes are destructive, required permissions, side effects on UV layers, or any error conditions. The term 'UV mapping operations' implies modification, but specifics are absent.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief introductory line followed by a clear bullet-point list of operations with their parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information. The format is easy to scan and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 sparse schema, missing annotations, and numerous sibling UV tools, the description provides adequate but not complete context. It covers the operations and their parameters but lacks information about return values (despite an output schema existing), prerequisites (e.g., existing UV layers), error handling, and the overall workflow impact. This leaves gaps for the agent to infer.

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 input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description adds significant value by explaining each operation's custom parameters (e.g., angle threshold for auto_seams, margin for pack_islands). However, the format for the 'params' string is shown but not strictly specified, and the 'operation' parameter values are listed but not enforced as enums.

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 it provides 'Advanced UV mapping operations beyond basic smart project' and enumerates specific operations (auto_seams, pack_islands, etc.), effectively indicating its purpose. However, it could better differentiate from sibling UV tools like uv_unwrap or uv_smart_unwrap by explicitly stating when to use this bundled tool versus individual ones.

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 only mentions 'beyond basic smart project' as context, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uv_unwrap or smart_uv_project. No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without clear usage boundaries.

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