uv.detect_overlap

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds only 'Risk: read; maturity: L1' and a generic requirements note, which mostly repeats what annotations convey and provides no concrete behavioral detail such as what data is read, what is returned, or what constraints apply.

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, but brevity is achieved by omitting essential functional information rather than by condensing useful guidance. The first sentence simply restates the command name, and the remaining sentences provide only generic metadata.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nontrivial UV analysis operation and many sibling UV tools, this description is far from complete. It lacks a functional explanation, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and any indication of what the output represents.

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 only 38%, and most main parameters like name, uvLayer, objectId, and tolerance have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not compensate at all: it never explains the meaning, units, or relationships of these parameters.

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 only restates the command name as 'PartMe Blender Harness command `uv.detect_overlap`' and provides risk maturity metadata, but never states what the tool actually does in plain language. It does not say it detects overlapping UV faces or islands, so an agent cannot infer the operation beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the UV siblings such as blender_uv_inspect, blender_uv_pack, or blender_uv_unwrap. The requirements sentence about argument checks and session policy is generic harness noise, not usage direction.

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