object-bake_transfer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says it bakes maps but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing maps, modifying target materials, creating new images), performance implications, or error conditions. It lacks transparency about what happens during the bake or what the tool modifies.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the operation and output. It contains no redundant words or fluff and is easily scannable.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not mention prerequisites like target UVs, the requirement of a source with high detail, what happens to existing maps, or whether the tool generates new images or modifies in-place. The tool likely has significant side effects, but the description does not cover them.

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 description does not explain any parameters; schema description coverage is 0%. The schema titles are informative (e.g., 'Comma-separated maps to bake', 'Cage extrusion / ray distance'), so the schema carries the burden. Since the description adds no value beyond the schema and does not compensate for the low coverage, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: baking normal/AO maps from a high-poly source to a low-poly target. It specifies the verb (bake), the resources (source and target meshes), and the output (maps). It is distinct from sibling tools like object-transform_set or object-duplicate, and no other tool in the list appears to perform texture 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 description implies the use case (high->low detail baking) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., target must have UVs, which is in the schema title but not the description). It also doesn't mention when not to use it or any caveats like requiring a cage or ray distance setup. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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