ap_export_material_bake

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions exporting images but does not explain side effects such as whether files are written, overwritten, or whether the scene/material is modified. This is a meaningful gap.

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 concise: two sentences that directly state the purpose and an important exclusion. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but omits output details such as return values, file naming, or image formats. Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity about what the caller should expect after 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?

The single parameter 'directory' is described in the schema, and the description adds useful detail about absolute paths and forward slashes, including that backslashes are converted. This is sufficient for the 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 clearly states the action: bake the active material onto a plane and export the result as images. It also explicitly differentiates this from mesh map baking, which helps distinguish it from similar export or baking 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?

The description gives a clear purpose and a negative usage note ('not mesh map baking'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ap_export_textures or ap_export_material. Some inference is required.

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