start_bake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the bake is asynchronous and requires explicit confirmation, but omits whether it mutates project state, what backup behavior means, and how it interacts with existing bake jobs or backups.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the broader specification gaps rather than being a flaw of density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and complex baking siblings, the description is too thin to ensure an agent invokes it correctly or understands the backup-related parameters.

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 five parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'confirmation' (loosely implying the confirm flag) but says nothing about texture_set, backup_mode, backup_path, or overwrite_backup, leaving critical parameters undocumented.

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: start an asynchronous mesh-map bake. This is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like start_batch_bake, preflight_bake, or configure_baking.

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 'after explicit confirmation' establishes a prerequisite, implying the agent must confirm before invoking. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus preflight_bake, start_batch_bake, or inspect_baking, and does not describe exclusions or alternatives.

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