baker_set_cage

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds the useful behavioral rule that `estimate` lets Toolbag compute first and that explicit min/max override it, but says nothing about persistence, undo, or what happens to groups not named.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. It is compact rather than padded, though the terse phrasing is borderline cryptic.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves most parameters and the mutation's effect underspecified. The presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but not from covering parameter meaning.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only `groups` (omitted means all) and the estimate/min_offset/max_offset interplay; `baker`, `cage_alpha`, and `exclude_when_ignoring_groups` are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 names the resource (cage offsets per bake group) and the operating scope, but the verb is implicit and the tool's relationship to sibling setters like baker_set_settings or baker_set_maps is never stated. An agent can infer it configures bake cage offsets, but not precisely what state it changes.

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?

Only guidance given is '(all groups when omitted)', which is scope, not when-to-use. No indication of when to prefer estimate versus explicit min/max, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as baker_set_settings.

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