uv_unwrap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'UV unwrap a mesh' without disclosing side effects (e.g., overwrites UV layer, requires existing seams, creates new map). No output schema to clarify return values.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose first, then param details. No redundant information. Efficiently communicates key points.

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 mesh-modifying tool with no output schema and zero annotations, the description is too brief. It omits prerequisites (e.g., seams must be marked), whether it adds or replaces UVs, and what the result is. Incomplete for safe agent usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so description adds value: explains METHOD and MARGIN. However, the required 'name' parameter is undocumented. Provides partial but helpful context beyond schema.

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 does UV unwrapping using seam-based method, distinguishing it from UV projection or smart unwrap. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like uv_smart_unwrap, which may also use seams but with different algorithms.

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 implies usage for seam-based unwrapping but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over UV siblings (e.g., uv_smart_unwrap, uv_project_from_view). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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