bake_physics

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'bake' but does not explain side effects (e.g., modification of simulation caches), what happens if baking is not possible, or any performance/irreversibility implications. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks critical context and clarity, making it insufficient for proper tool selection and use. The brevity does not serve the agent.

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 tool has an output schema but the description does not hint at what is returned. It also fails to explain the baking context (e.g., which objects, what caches), leaving the agent without adequate information to call it correctly, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 only parameter, object_name, has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not clarify its meaning, expected format, or whether it is optional. The agent is left completely in the dark about this 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 states a specific action ('Bake') on specific resources ('rigid body / point cache'), which distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like bake_texture. However, the phrase 'where possible' introduces ambiguity about conditions and scope, so it is not fully precise.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent cannot determine whether it should be used before rendering or after setting up physics. This is a clear gap.

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