Assign or clear a Resource-typed baking input for a texture set and parameter, optionally scoped to a baker, in one transactional update.
Set or clear a Resource-typed common/per-baker input transactionally.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| baker | No | ||
| clear | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| parameter | Yes | ||
| texture_set | Yes | ||
| resource_url | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Transactionally' usefully discloses atomic behavior, and 'clear' implies removal, but the description does not say what happens on failure, whether clearing is destructive, what confirm does, or what permissions are required for a mutation tool.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the set/clear dichotomy comes early. It is efficiently written, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined pruning.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is far too thin; an agent cannot infer what texture_set and parameter mean or when confirm is required. The output schema relieves the need to explain return values, but the input semantics and safety profile remain seriously under-described.
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 six parameters, including required ones like texture_set and parameter. The description only hints at 'baker' ('per-baker'), the clear mode ('clear'), and transactionality, leaving confirm, resource_url, texture_set, and parameter entirely unexplained.
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 specific verb ('Set or clear') and a specific resource ('Resource-typed common/per-baker input'), making the scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like set_baking_mesh_inputs or set_fill_resource, so differentiation is implied by the resource-type qualifier rather than stated.
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 phrase 'Set or clear' signals the two modes, which is useful, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus configure_baking, set_baking_mesh_inputs, or set_fill_resource. No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.