blender_bake_id_map

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

It discloses a meaningful side effect: 'Temporarily overrides materials with emission shaders, bakes EMIT, then restores originals.' This is valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema, especially with no annotations present, and reassures the agent that original materials are restored.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and mechanism; the second provides the main use case. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and typical use well. It could mention prerequisites like a UV map or assigned materials, but the description still gives an agent enough to decide whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of per-material/object/face-set assignment mirrors the color_mode enum but adds no new parameter-level detail. It correctly frames what the parameters achieve, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'Bake a color ID map', a specific verb-plus-resource statement, and immediately clarifies the output: distinct flat colors per material, object, or face set. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling bake tools like blender_bake_pbr_batch or blender_bake_curvature, which target different map types.

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 supplies a concrete use case: 'Essential for texture painting workflows and Substance Painter masks.' This tells an agent when to select this tool. It does not explicitly list alternative bake tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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