blender_bake_pbr_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool switches to Cycles, iterates channels, creates temporary images, configures bake settings, saves maps to disk, and returns a path dict. This meaningfully informs the agent of state changes and file outputs. It could add caveats about overwriting files, UV requirements, or the permanence of the engine switch, but the major behavioral traits are present.

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 sentences with no filler. The main capability is front-loaded, the process steps are compactly listed, and the return type is stated at the end. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 an 11-parameter bake operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return value and high-level process but omits important operational context: prerequisites like UV maps or materials, potential overwrite behavior, runtime cost, and whether the Cycles switch is persistent. The schema covers parameters, but the operational envelope is not fully described.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description mostly restates what the schema already says about channels and output files, adding little beyond process context. It does not clarify parameter interactions, defaults, or edge cases, but the schema fully documents each parameter.

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 ALL PBR texture channels in one call.' It enumerates the exact channel set (DIFFUSE through COMBINED) and ends with a concrete return value. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling bake tools like curvature, ID map, or vertex-color baking, even without naming them.

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 'ALL PBR texture channels in one call' gives a strong contextual cue for when to use this tool: when multiple PBR maps are needed from a single bake operation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many bake-related siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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