Add an Unwrap UVW modifier to objects for manual UV editing. Omit object names to affect the current selection.
给对象添加 Unwrap UVW（UVW 展开）修改器，进入后可手动编辑 UV。省略对象则作用于当前选择。 [English] Add an Unwrap UVW modifier so UVs can be edited manually. Omit objects to affect the current selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objects | No | 对象名列表；省略则使用当前选择。 | Object names; omit to use the current selection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating/destructive operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true). The description adds that a modifier is added and that manual UV editing becomes possible, but it does not disclose side effects such as modifier stack changes or whether the tool enters an edit mode. 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?
The description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the essential selection default. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but not excessive or confusing.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could optionally mention entering edit mode or modifier stack implications, but those are not critical gaps.
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 covers the objects parameter completely, including the 'omit to use current selection' behavior. The description repeats the same default-selection information but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource: add an Unwrap UVW modifier to objects or the current selection. It also clarifies the intended purpose (manual UV editing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like uvw_map and uvw_quick_peel.
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 clearly conveys when the tool is useful ('so UVs can be edited manually') and explains the optional objects behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare against UV-related siblings or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.