Bake textures in Blender using Cycles with options for bake type, size, and sampling. Automatically smart-projects UVs if needed and saves result as PNG.
Cycles 烘焙到贴图。bake_type: DIFFUSE/NORMAL/AO/ROUGHNESS/EMIT/COMBINED/…；无 UV 自动 smart project；output_path 保存 PNG。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| image | No | ||
| margin | No | ||
| object | Yes | ||
| samples | No | ||
| bake_type | Yes | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| cage_extrusion | No | ||
| selected_to_active | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavior. It mentions auto smart projection and PNG output, but omits side effects like UV modification, image creation, file overwriting, or whether the object is modified permanently.
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 very brief and to the point, with no redundant wording. It packs key information into two short sentences.
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 tool's complexity and 9 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about prerequisites, parameter interactions, return values, or failure modes, making it insufficient for a robust agent 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 has 9 parameters with zero descriptions. The description only explains bake_type values and output_path behavior, leaving size, margin, samples, image, cage_extrusion, and selected_to_active unexplained.
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?
Description clearly states the tool bakes textures using Cycles and lists common bake types, distinguishing it from render/save tools. It could be slightly more explicit about the end result but is generally specific.
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?
Provides some usage context, such as automatic smart UV projection when no UVs exist and output as PNG. However, it does not mention when to choose this over alternatives or prerequisites like selecting objects or enabling Cycles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.