unwrapUVs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'automatic unwrapping' but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it modifies existing UVs or creates new ones, if it requires specific mesh properties, potential side effects like overwriting data, or performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Generate UV coordinates using automatic unwrapping.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented schema. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the action and method.

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 (a UV generation tool with nested parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information. The schema covers parameters well, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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% description coverage, with detailed docs for all parameters (e.g., 'method' with enum values, 'margin' with range). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, not even high-level context like what 'items' represent. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Generate UV coordinates using automatic unwrapping.' It specifies the action ('generate UV coordinates') and method ('automatic unwrapping'), which is more informative than just restating the name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'createUVMaps' or 'transformUVs', which might have overlapping or related functionality in UV mapping.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mesh), exclusions (e.g., not suitable for manual UV editing), or refer to sibling tools like 'createUVMaps' for initial UV creation or 'transformUVs' for modifying existing UVs. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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