blender_uv

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

Annotations do not indicate read-only or destructive behavior, so the description carries some burden. It discloses the operation variants but does not specify which operations mutate or have side effects (e.g., reset_uvs is destructive implicitly). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Concise bulleted list with a clear purpose statement. Every item provides useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (7 operations, 4 params), the description is adequate but lacks details on prerequisites, error conditions, or when specific operations are appropriate. The output schema reduces the need for return-value documentation, but more context on object requirements would be helpful.

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 covers all parameters, but the description enriches the 'operation' parameter by enumerating allowed values. This adds value beyond the vague schema description 'UV operation type'.

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, listing seven specific operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_mesh or blender_textures, though 'manage' is somewhat generic.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The operation list implies usage contexts (e.g., 'unwrap' for UV unwrapping), but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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