unwrap_selected

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the seam dependency and the existence of alternatives, but it does not state whether existing UV maps are overwritten, what happens if no seams are present, or any other side effects. Some behavior is implied, but not fully disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key usage caveat. Every clause adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 definition tells the agent when to use the tool but leaves significant gaps: no parameter explanations, no side-effect disclosure, no output/result description, and no annotations. For a tool with 5 parameters and low schema coverage, this is incomplete.

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 20%, and the description adds no meaning for margin, method, fill_holes, or correct_aspect. The schema provides defaults and enums but no explanation, and the description does not compensate for the low 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Unwrap along marked seams') and immediately distinguishes itself from smart_uv_project. An agent can tell this tool is for seam-based unwrapping, not automatic projection.

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 explicitly states the precondition ('Only useful once seams exist'), names the prerequisite tool ('use mark_seams_by_angle first'), and offers the alternative ('smart_uv_project for a seamless automatic result'). This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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