fix_missing_uids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inject' implies a mutating operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, whether files are modified in-place, irreversibility, or permission requirements. This is similar to update_drive, which lacked such details.

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 sentence of 11 words that efficiently conveys the action and target with zero redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 is too sparse for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It lacks guidance on when to use, what happens to existing UIDs, and how it relates to sibling tools like list_missing_uids and update_project_uids. This mirrors update_drive, which scored 2 for similar 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are necessary since there is nothing to explain.

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 action ('Inject generated UIDs') and the specific target ('scene/resource headers missing them'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_missing_uids and update_project_uids by defining a precise repair operation.

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 implies the tool is used when scene/resource headers are missing UIDs, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like list_missing_uids (find missing) or update_project_uids (broader update). No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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