baker_skew_apply

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains the workaround (Python API can't set skew masks, so the scene is saved to a new file, masks written there, Toolbag loads it), that `path` is never overwritten, the default `<scene>_skew.tbscene` naming, and that the original scene file stays untouched. These are exactly the side effects and prerequisites an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool, and they are consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads purpose in the first clause and keeps the file-lifecycle explanation tight at four sentences. The workaround detail is long but load-bearing for correct invocation; only mild redundancy between 'saved as a new file' and 'original scene file stays untouched'.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the description covers the side effects, file naming, and prerequisite that matter for this mutation. The gap is the eight undocumented tuning parameters, which are only reachable via a cross-reference to another tool's definition.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It fully explains `path` (what it is, default, never overwritten) and delegates the remaining edge-rule parameters to baker_skew_preview, but bend_px, hard_px, seam_px, soft_px, bend_deg, mask_size, baker and groups get no meaning, units, or ranges 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?

States a specific verb and resource: write skew masks by edge rule into the bake groups. It also names the sibling it complements (baker_skew_preview, same parameters), so an agent can distinguish apply-from-preview without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical pointer to baker_skew_preview with 'same parameters' routes the agent to the preview counterpart for inspection, and the default-path note states the prerequisite that the current scene must have been saved once. It stops short of an explicit 'use preview first, then apply' instruction or any when-not guidance.

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