production.bake_smoke_test

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: a checkpoint and asset guard, restoration of transient settings/material/UV/selection, CPU fallback being opt-in, and that generated artifacts are diagnostic only. These details materially clarify side effects and safety beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 compact and front-loads the core scope, ranges, and diagnostic nature. It is dense with semicolon-separated clauses, but each clause adds useful information and there is little obvious waste.

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 tool is complex, has four parameters with no schema descriptions, and has an output schema. The description covers scope, safety/restoration behavior, CPU opt-in, and artifact nature well, but it leaves key input semantics for 'options' and 'operation_id' unexplained, so it is only partially complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It hints at 'pair' being a current immutable pair and 'allow_cpu_fallback' via 'CPU explicitly opt-in', but it leaves 'options' and 'operation_id' unexplained, so it does not compensate adequately for the missing schema documentation.

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 operation: bounded NORMAL/AO smoke-map baking from an immutable pair, with explicit size and sample ranges. It also signals that this is diagnostic rather than production texture QA, which helps distinguish it from siblings like production.bake_validate or production.bake_prepare_pairs, though it does not name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by terms like 'smoke maps', 'CPU explicitly opt-in', and 'no production texture QA', suggesting this is for quick diagnostic baking rather than final validation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus bake_validate, bake_prepare_pairs, or other bake-related siblings.

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