uv_project_from_view

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must bear the burden. It only mentions 'simple projection methods' and parameter names/types but does not disclose whether existing UVs are overwritten, error conditions, or any side effects.

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 short and includes an args section. No waste, but could be more structured (e.g., separate sections).

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and only 3 parameters with limited explanation. The description covers basic usage but lacks details on return value, errors, or prerequisites. Adequate for a simple tool, but could be more complete.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: object_name as target mesh, projection enumerates three specific methods, scale as UV scale factor. This adds meaning beyond the schema's default values and types.

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 states it projects UV coordinates using simple projection methods (cube, cylinder, sphere), which is specific. However, the tool name 'uv_project_from_view' suggests view-projection, while the description lists cubic/cylindrical/spherical projections, which may cause slight confusion. It distinguishes from sibling UV tools like 'uv_unwrap' or 'uv_smart_unwrap' by focusing on simple geometric projections.

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 on when to use this tool versus other UV mapping tools (e.g., 'uv_unwrap', 'uv_smart_unwrap') or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context provided.

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