uv.measure_texel_density

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'Risk: read' is redundant. It adds only 'maturity: L1' which is not a behavioral trait. No additional context about side effects, return behavior, or operational requirements is disclosed.

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, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not front-load any useful information about what the tool does or its key parameters. The sentence is essentially a command reference with a risk tag, lacking structure or hierarchy of important details.

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 tool with 10 parameters and a measurement function, this description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, or output. Even though an output schema exists, the description provides no guidance that would help an agent invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is only 30% (3 out of 10 parameters described), and the description provides no parameter information at all. It does not explain the meaning of textureWidth, textureHeight, targetDensity, objectId, or any other field. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'uv.measure_texel_density' and adds a risk label, without explaining what the tool actually does. It does not distinguish itself from sibling UV tools like blender_uv_inspect or blender_uv_pack. An agent would have to infer the purpose from the name alone.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions that request checks and session policy apply, which is generic and not about usage context. There is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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