baker_replace_low

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds real context: the operation is a wholesale geometry swap that brings new UVs and fixed topology while preserving group, cage and material, and it warns that stored cage directions may be unreliable afterward. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g. group with zero or multiple low meshes) or undo behavior.

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, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the caution about cage directions placed after it. Nothing repeats structured data.

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 explained, but for a mutation tool the description omits the meaning of the 'baker' parameter and the constraints implied by 'single low mesh' (what happens if the group has none or several). Adequate, not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It gives meaning to 'group' (the group whose single low mesh is replaced) and 'path' (a model file containing the replacement mesh), but the third parameter 'baker' is never mentioned anywhere, leaving it completely ambiguous.

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 precise verb and resource: swap the low mesh of a group with a mesh from a model file, preserving group, cage and material. That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like scene_import_model or baker_quick_load, though it does not explicitly name a competing tool.

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 the framing (replace geometry without losing group/cage/material setup) and there is a helpful precondition ('save the scene first if you rely on stored cage directions'). However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as re-importing the model or baker_quick_load, nor what preconditions the group must satisfy.

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