baker_set_maps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns the enabled maps and that maps are addressed by suffix, but does not say what disabling does to existing per-map options, whether options for disabled maps are retained, or what happens if the target baker is omitted.

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 sentence front-loads the action, followed by the suffix list and a compact literal example that resolves the otherwise opaque options object. Dense but every element earns its place, and the return-value note sits at the end where it belongs.

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 output schema covers the return value, and the annotations cover safety, so the remaining gap is behavioral: default baker selection, list-vs-single suffix handling, and the fate of options on disabled maps are all unstated for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero schema documentation.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it partially does: the 'suffix' vocabulary explains what values enable/disable accept and the JSON example documents the shape of the free-form 'options' object. However it never mentions the 'baker' selector parameter or that enable/disable are lists, leaving half the parameters 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?

Names a specific verb pair ('switch maps on or off') and resource ('maps'), plus a secondary capability ('set map options'), with a concrete suffix vocabulary ('normals', 'ao', 'height', etc.). It is clearly distinct from setters like baker_set_visible or baker_set_settings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 operation (call to toggle maps and configure their options) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the sibling tools that handle adjacent concerns (baker_set_settings, baker_set_texture_set, baker_map_path). An agent must infer the boundary from the name.

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