production.bake_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it checks *actual* Blender tangents and both base and evaluated geometry, and it discloses the staleness gate. It stops short of saying what is required of the inputs or how the verdict is reported back.

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 sentences with no filler, and the outcome enum is front-loaded. But the first sentence is an unpunctuated telegraphed list that is hard to parse on first read, and the check categories would be clearer as a structured sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out. Still, for a 3-parameter validation gate with 0% schema coverage and no stated prerequisites or sibling routing, the description leaves an agent guessing about inputs and about when this step belongs in the bake pipeline.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning — and it largely fails. 'relation' and 'pair' are gestured at ('from relation', 'stale pair'), but there is no indication of valid relationship values, what the optional 'pair' does when null, or what the free-form 'options' object accepts.

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 conveys that this produces a bake-readiness verdict (READY/READY_WITH_WARNINGS/NOT_READY) and lists the classes of checks performed (topology, UV/UDIM, tangents, cage/rays, materials). However, it never states the verb+resource plainly — you have to infer that it validates a high-to-low bake pair — and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like bake_smoke_test or bake_prepare_pairs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus bake_prepare_pairs, bake_smoke_test, or bake_analyze_ray_distance, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., pairs must be prepared first). The only usage-adjacent statement is a rule about outcomes ('A stale pair never becomes READY'), not about when to invoke it.

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