pbr_pack_orm

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses the channel packing order (AO→R, Rough→G, Metal→B) and the Non-Color requirement, but it does not describe output location, what happens if input images are missing, or whether existing textures are overwritten.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core operation and immediately states the channel layout and target convention. Every word adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 the complete lack of parameter descriptions, behavioral annotations, and output schema, a one-sentence description is not fully sufficient. It omits details about required inputs, how width/height are used, where the resulting ORM image is stored, and what an agent should do if referenced images do not exist.

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 0%, but the channel mapping clarifies the roles of ao_image_name, rough_image_name, and metal_image_name. Width, height, and output_name are left to inference from their names, and no input requirements or format details are provided.

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 ('Pack') and identifies the exact resource: AO, Rough, and Metal channels combined into one ORM image. It also adds the Godot engine and Non-Color color-space context, which clearly distinguishes it from related PBR tools like pbr_bake_texture or pbr_create_material.

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 use case: when separate AO, Roughness, and Metal images need to be combined for Godot. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbr_bake_texture, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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