baker_skew_clear_preview

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to explain the state change. It does say the low materials regain their albedo map and colour, which is genuinely useful side-effect information, but it doesn't clarify whether the skew mask is discarded or merely hidden, nor whether any other preview state is reset.

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 the action first and the effect second; nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, little is required, but the description doesn't tie the call to its preview counterpart (baker_skew_preview) or mention whether it must follow a preview. The pairing context would make correct sequencing obvious.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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 ('End the skew mask preview') and immediately names the effect on low materials' albedo and colour. It is distinguishable from siblings baker_skew_preview and baker_skew_apply, though the distinction is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 word 'End' implies this is the teardown counterpart to a preview, but it never states when to call it (e.g. after baker_skew_preview) or how it differs from baker_skew_apply. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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