baker_bake_psd

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that only *enabled* maps are baked and that output is a single layered file, but it does not say whether an existing file at that path is overwritten, where the output path is configured, or whether baking is long-running.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 no explanation, but for a file-writing bake operation the description leaves critical context unstated: how the output path is supplied, where the 'baker' argument fits, and what happens on overwrite.

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% and the sole parameter 'baker' is undocumented and unexplained. The description instead mentions 'the output path', which is not a parameter of this tool at all, creating a mismatch between described inputs and actual schema.

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 and outcome: bakes all enabled maps into a single layered PSD. It distinguishes itself implicitly from baker_bake and baker_bake_to by the layered-PSD output, but never names those siblings, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus baker_bake, baker_bake_to, or baker_bake_psd's prerequisites (baker config, enabled maps, output path source). The agent must guess its place in a large baker family.

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