blender_uv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists operations without detailing side effects, destructive nature, or error conditions. For example, it doesn't state whether operations modify the object in place or create new data, nor does it mention permissions or prerequisites.

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: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of operations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The list is clear but slightly repetitive (e.g., 'UV coordinates' appears multiple times).

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 complexity (multiple operations and 4 parameters) and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior of each operation in detail, nor does it describe the output schema (which exists). An agent would lack information on prerequisites, failure cases, and return values.

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 with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value by enumerating the valid values for the 'operation' parameter, which is not constrained by an enum in the schema. However, for other parameters like 'unwrap_method' and 'margin', the description does not add beyond the schema.

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 'Manage UV mapping and texture coordinates' as the tool's purpose, and the enumerated operations (unwrap, smart_project, etc.) specify the exact actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blender_mesh and blender_textures, which handle other aspects.

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 lists possible operations but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object must have a mesh), nor does it indicate when not to use the tool (e.g., for non-UV-related tasks).

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