blender_uv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the supported operations and their brief purposes (e.g., 'unwrap UV coordinates') but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or failure modes. Without annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (two sentences) and uses a bullet list for operations. It is structured logically but could be slightly more compact. Still, it achieves clarity without extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's 4 parameters (all documented), an output schema (mentioned in context), and straightforward operations, the description is largely complete. It covers the main functionality and operation options. Minor gaps include lack of prerequisite info (e.g., object must have mesh) but overall adequate for typical UV tasks.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, it adds value by enumerating valid operation values and their meanings, which goes beyond the schema's 'UV operation type' description. For other parameters like unwrap_method and margin, the schema descriptions suffice. Overall, the description provides incremental meaning.

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 manages UV mapping and texture coordinates, and lists specific operations (unwrap, smart_project, etc.). This verb+resource pairing is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like blender_mesh, blender_textures, etc., which handle other aspects of 3D modeling.

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 UV-related tasks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lists operations but offers no guidance on selecting between them, e.g., when to use unwrap vs smart_project.

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