baker_bake

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds the synchronous/blocking trait ('can take minutes'), which is critical operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields. It also discloses where files land. It stops short of saying whether existing files at that path are overwritten or what the output schema returns.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the output-path convention and the timing caveat both front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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 existence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the timing behavior is covered. However, a 1-param tool with 0% schema coverage needs the description to carry the 'baker' argument and the outputPath/parameter mismatch, and it does not.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'baker' parameter, and the description never explains it, so an agent cannot tell whether it selects a baker by name/index or defaults to the active one. Worse, it references 'outputPath' as though it were a parameter, but no such parameter exists in the schema, which will mislead an agent trying to control the destination.

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?

States a specific verb ('Bake') and resource with concrete output behavior: writes enabled maps next to outputPath using the '<stem>_<suffix>.<ext>' naming convention. This is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like baker_bake_to or baker_bake_psd.

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 phrase 'with the project's current settings' implies you should configure baker_set_settings/baker_set_maps first, but that is inference rather than guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over baker_bake_to, baker_bake_psd, or baker_isolate/baker_set_visible setup steps.

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