uv.mark_seams

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether this is a mutation, what gets changed in the scene, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. The phrase 'Requirements... still apply' is procedural boilerplate, not behavior information.

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 short, but it is not a conciseness execution – it is under-specified. It does not front-load any actionable information; the first (and only) sentence just repeats the tool name. The generic token about 'Risk / maturity / requirements' adds no domain-specific value and is likely common to many tools.

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?

This is a solid operation that would modify a Blender scene object's UV marking, but the description fails given the lightly documented inputs. Although an output schema exists, many deciding factors remain unclear: what a correct selection looks like, whether the seam parameter toggles, possible side effects on topology, conditional on the scene revision, or how the request binding works. An agent cannot call this tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 67%: the selection and the internal _requestId, _authorization, _transactionId have descriptions, but the key 'seam' boolean parameter has none, and the description itself provides no explanation for its meaning (true to mark, false to unmark). The description adds no semantic value beyond the already structured schema, and so fails to clarify the most important parameter.

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 merely states 'PartMe Blender Harness command `uv.mark_seams`' which is a restatement of the tool name/title. It does not say what the command does, what resource it operates on, or how it relates to UV seam manipulation. Even the name hints at marking seams, but the description itself provides no purpose beyond the title.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many UV-related siblings (blender_uv_unwrap, blender_uv_pack, blender_uv_overlap, etc.). It does not mention prerequisites, selection context, or conditions when seams should be marked. The requirement line about per-request argument checks is generic and not functional.

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