smart_uv

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-readonly/async-open-world behavior, and the description adds real value on top: a 20-credit cost, the triangle ceiling, and the asynchronous task_id-then-wait pattern. It does not explain what is destroyed or overwritten (e.g., prior UVs/textures via bake) or credit-refund behavior on failure.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the capability, limit, cost, and async follow-up are all front-loaded in the order an agent needs them.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies cost and async workflow, but omits what the destructive operation affects and whether credits are refunded on failure — modest gaps for a paid, destructive task tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents input, bake, model, compress, and export_orientation. The description only echoes the ~80k triangle input limit and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Unwrap UVs for a mesh'), adds a concrete scope limit (~80k triangles) and a secondary output (UV layout preview). An agent can distinguish this from texture_model or retopologize without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the operational workflow explicitly: it creates a task, returns task_id immediately, and instructs the caller to then call wait_for_task. That routes the agent to the correct follow-up sibling. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over texturing or retopology steps.

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