uvw_quick_peel

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

The description explicitly states that the tool adds a modifier and attempts an operation that may silently fail if the editor is unavailable. This is critical behavioral transparency that complements the annotations, which only indicate destructiveHint. It does not contradict the annotations; destructiveHint is appropriate as adding a modifier alters the object.

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, front-loads the key action, and provides bilingual clarity. Every sentence adds value, with no 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?

The description covers the action, the conditional failure mode, and the selection fallback. With a simple single optional parameter and no output schema, there is nothing missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and the parameter description is already clear ('Object names; omit to use current selection'). The description repeats this but adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 an Unwrap UVW modifier and attempts quick peel, with the caveat that it may skip the peel if the editor is unavailable. It also names the target (objects or current selection), distinguishing it from related tools like uvw_unwrap and uvw_map.

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?

It explains when to use it (when quick peel is desired) and notes the silent skip behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like uvw_unwrap, but the clear action and scope are sufficient for typical use.

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