blender_bake_curvature

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It transparently explains how the curvature is calculated and how values are mapped to dark/bright areas, which adds real behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential prerequisites such as UV mapping or side effects like overwriting an existing file at output_path.

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?

Three tightly written sentences deliver purpose, method, and use cases with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by necessary technical detail and application guidance.

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 bake operation with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output mapping well. It omits practical prerequisites such as whether the target object needs UVs or a material setup, and it does not specify output format behavior tied to output_path.

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 100%, so the structured schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds algorithm-level context that relates to cavity_type (concave/convex) but does not enrich the meaning of object_name, output_path, or resolution beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Bake a curvature map from mesh geometry.' It provides the algorithm (dot product of vertex normals vs averaged neighbor normals) and the concave/convex output semantics, which clearly differentiates this from the many sibling bake and material tools.

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?

It states clear contexts for use: 'edge wear, dirt accumulation, and procedural texturing masks.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling bake tools like blender_bake_highpoly_to_lowpoly or blender_bake_id_map, but the use cases make the intended scenario evident.

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