uvw_map

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description need not repeat that adding a modifier modifies the object. The description does add context about mapping types and tiling/size, which is useful beyond the annotation. It does not disclose side effects like stack changes or undo behavior, but that is partially covered by the destructive hint. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 in English, front-loaded with the action. It lists the key capabilities without fluff. The bilingual repetition is acceptable but adds length; however, it is still compact and well-structured. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

For a modifier with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It explains the main purpose and the selection fallback, but does not cover parameter interactions (e.g., how size affects different mapping types, or the meaning of tiling values). An agent can invoke it correctly with the required mapping and optional params, but deeper context is missing. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (though minimal). The description adds a bit of meaning by explaining the mapping type enum and the tiling/size purpose, and clarifies that objects can be omitted to use selection. However, it does not explain relationships (e.g., size only relevant for certain mapping types) or defaults. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema covers the basics and the description adds modest value.

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 adds a UVW Map modifier and lists the supported mapping types (planar, cylindrical, spherical, shrink-wrap, box, face, XYZ). This distinguishes it from siblings like uvw_unwrap (which handles unwrapping) and mod_add (generic modifier). The specific verb+resource (add UVW Map modifier) leaves no ambiguity.

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 a useful usage hint: omitting objects uses the current selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to prefer this over uvw_unwrap or other modifier tools), nor does it state conditions like 'use for applying mapping coordinates to objects.' The hint about selection is helpful but not comprehensive guidance on when to use the tool.

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