smart_uv_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about the core behavior and even adds a useful side-effect detail: 'Creates a UV map if the mesh has none.' However, it does not disclose that existing UV maps may be overwritten, nor does it mention undoability or other mutation side effects.

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?

Three short sentences with no fluff. The action verb and resource are front-loaded, and both the usage context and a behavioral detail earn their place in the description.

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 adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it, given that parameter details live in the schema. It is less complete on behavior beyond UV creation, such as overwriting behavior and whether the operation is safe/undoable – especially important because there are no annotations and no output schema.

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 schema already describes names, angle_limit, and island_margin clearly, covering 60% of parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the undocumented booleans (correct_aspect, scale_to_bounds) are left to their titles, which is a moderate gap but not severe.

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: 'Automatically unwrap meshes.' It also distinguishes itself by framing the tool as the first choice for props with no marked seams, which separates it from seam-dependent unwrapping siblings like unwrap_selected and mark_seams_by_angle.

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 gives clear usage context: 'The right first choice for a prop with no seams marked.' This tells the agent when to select this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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