blender_bake_highpoly_to_lowpoly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'selected to active' which hints at selection state, but that is already in the schema. It does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., UV mapping on the low-poly), side effects (e.g., creation of new image textures, modification of materials), or whether existing images are overwritten. It also does not specify the output behavior beyond the output_dir parameter. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. It is concise and free of redundancy. It could arguably be more compact, but it is well-structured and informative without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains what the tool does but omits prerequisites (e.g., UV layout, material setup), what happens to the baked maps (e.g., are they saved as image files? assigned to materials?), and any potential side effects. An agent would need to infer these from the schema or trial-and-error, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not elaborate on how parameters like cage_extrusion or samples affect the bake. Per the baseline for full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate; the description neither helps nor hinders parameter understanding.

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 action ('bake detail from high-poly to low-poly'), the technique ('selected to active'), and the typical use case ('transferring normals, AO, and other maps from a sculpt or subdivision model to a game-ready low-poly mesh'). It distinctly separates this from sibling bake tools like bake_from_multires or bake_to_vertex_colors by specifying the high-poly-to-low-poly transfer.

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 gives a clear ideal use scenario and implies when to use it (when you have a high-poly and low-poly pair). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where a different bake tool would be more appropriate, such as baking PBR maps in one batch or baking from multires. The guidance is helpful but not fully explicit.

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