uv_mark_seams

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: auto-marking based on sharp angle, clearing existing seams, and using specific edge indices. However, it does not specify what happens when both edge_indices and sharp_angle are provided, nor does it mention prerequisites or mode requirements.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. The purpose is stated in one line, followed by a clean bullet-style listing of arguments. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides value.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and parameters, but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., object must be a mesh with UVs), return values, mode requirements (edit vs object mode), and how it interacts with other UV tools. Some gaps remain for a fully self-contained description.

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 necessary semantics for each parameter: 'edge_indices' as specific edges, 'sharp_angle' with auto-mark behavior and default=disabled, 'clear_existing' as clearing all seams first. This adds meaning beyond the basic schema titles.

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's action ('Mark UV seams on a mesh') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling UV tools like uv_unwrap, uv_smart_unwrap, uv_pack_islands, etc., by focusing on seam marking.

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 over alternatives (e.g., when to use edge_indices vs sharp_angle, or how it interacts with other UV operations). The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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