unwrap_model_asset

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

Annotations already convey idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the operation updates the asset's source file. This goes beyond the annotations, which only say the tool is not read-only without specifying what mutation occurs.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('Generate UV1 data') and then adds the relevant mechanism and side effect. There is no redundant wording or restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description covers the core operation but omits useful context about the 'unwrap worker' workflow, such as whether the call is asynchronous, how completion is signaled, or that cancel_model_unwrap exists as a cancellation sibling. With no output schema, agents are left to guess about return behavior and post-call status.

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 both 'id' and 'padding' clearly. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate UV1 data'), a clear resource ('model asset'), and a concrete side effect ('update its source file'). This distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like cancel_model_unwrap and bake_lightmaps, so an agent can tell what this tool does.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cancel_model_unwrap, nor does it state prerequisites or situations where another unwrap-related tool would be preferable. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and action.

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