bake_ao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is destructive, requires UVs, or side effects like overwriting files. The term 'simplified' is vague without concrete behavior details.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus a parameter list, all front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

Despite conciseness, the description lacks essential context: prerequisites (e.g., UV unwrapping), output details (file format, location), and whether the tool is safe to re-run. For a baking tool, this information is crucial for correct 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides brief explanations for all 4 parameters, adding meaning beyond defaults and types. For example, 'samples: Render samples (higher = cleaner)' clarifies the parameter's effect, and output_path behavior is noted.

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 it bakes an ambient occlusion map for a mesh, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bake_normal_map or bake_textures by specifying 'ambient occlusion' and 'simplified single-map bake.'

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bake_normal_map. The phrase 'simplified single-map bake' implies a simpler workflow but lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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