set_active_uv_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state any side effects (e.g., that setting active UV layer does not alter geometry) or requirements (e.g., that the object must exist and have the specified UV layer). It also doesn't mention what happens if the UV layer does not exist, or whether the operation is reversible. The description is overly terse for a tool that modifies state.

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, concise sentence that is appropriately front-loaded. However, it is so short it may be under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It earns a 4 because it is direct and free of fluff, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 that this is a state-changing operation with no output schema and only partial parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the object context (which object's UV layer is being set), nor does it clarify the meaning of 'name' (likely the object name), nor the relationship between 'uv_name' and existing UV layers. It also lacks error handling or prerequisite information. This falls short of what's needed for an agent to call it correctly without diving into the schema (which itself is sparse).

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 description coverage is only 33% (only the 'active_render' parameter has a description). The 'name' and 'uv_name' parameters have no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain their meaning or relationship. 'name' likely refers to the object name, but this is not clarified. 'uv_name' is clear from the tool name, but 'name' is ambiguous. The description adds no parameter-specific value beyond what the schema provides for 'active_render'.

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 ('Choose') and the resource ('UV map'), and it implicitly targets which UV map is active. It is distinct from siblings like list_uv_layers, create_uv_layer, and delete_uv_layer, which perform different operations on UV maps. However, it could be more explicit about the resource being an object's UV layer.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Context suggests it is used to set the active UV layer for a given object, but this is not stated. It doesn't differentiate from similar operations like creating or deleting UV layers, nor does it mention that 'active_render' might be optional for render-time selection.

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