smart_uv_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the angle limit unit and default, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it replaces existing UV maps, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., object selection). This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 a single sentence plus a parenthetical, covering purpose and a key parameter nuance without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only two parameters, the description lacks critical context about side effects (e.g., whether existing UVs are replaced), required object state, or how results are returned. For an autonomous agent, this is incomplete guidance.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to angle_limit by specifying 'radians (default ~66 degrees)' and explaining the default's approximate value. However, it does not elaborate on the object parameter, which is self-explanatory from context but still undocumented.

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's function: 'Auto UV unwrap using smart project.' This specifies the verb (unwrap), resource (UV), and method (smart project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_uv_maps and create_uv_map, which handle UV maps but not unwrapping.

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 the tool is for automatic UV unwrapping via smart project, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternative unwrap methods or when not to use it. There are no direct sibling unwrap tools, but the guidance could be stronger.

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