uv_pack_islands

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states the operation's basic purpose and parameters. It does not disclose important traits such as whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the active UV layer, or how it handles seams and overlapping islands.

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: one sentence stating purpose followed by a compact Arg list. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the necessary information without any filler.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but leaves gaps. It does not explain the result or side effects (e.g., does it modify an existing UV layer or create a new one?), nor does it specify the margin unit or behavioral constraints.

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%, so the description must compensate. Each parameter (object_name, margin, rotate) is briefly explained with a short phrase, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and types. However, the explanations are minimal and could include acceptable ranges, units, or typical usage notes.

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 (Pack) and the resource (UV islands) with a specific goal (fill UV space efficiently). It distinguishes from sibling tools like uv_unwrap and uv_smart_unwrap by using different terminology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from smart_uv_project or smart_uv_tools, which could overlap.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing UV unwrap) or when not to use it (e.g., for projection-based tasks). There is no explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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