generate_lightmap_uvs

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., modifying the mesh asset, overwriting existing UVs, need to save, or any destructive implications). This lack of transparency for a mutation-like tool is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that fully conveys the core purpose. No fluff or redundant information; 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not state whether the mesh asset is modified in-place, whether existing UVs are overwritten, any prerequisites (e.g., mesh must be static, accessible), or error conditions. Given the mutation-like nature, more context is needed.

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 for mesh_path is 'Static mesh asset path', which is unambiguous. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 clearly states the action (generate lightmap UVs) and the target resource (static mesh). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_collision or apply_material, as no other tool mentions lightmap UV generation.

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, prerequisites, or conditions under which it should be invoked. The description is purely declarative without contextual usage instructions.

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