bake_textures

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 specific permissions, or affects the scene beyond creating files. The behavioral implications are unclear.

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 reasonably concise with a summary and Args list, but the Args section largely duplicates the schema's parameter names and defaults, making it somewhat redundant. Could be more streamlined.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and parameter details but misses high-level behavior like output format, potential side effects, or prerequisites. Moderately complete but with gaps.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for parameters like 'bake_types' (JSON array), 'output_dir' (Blender path format), and 'high_poly' (optional high-poly mesh). However, it does not explain defaults or valid ranges for enums.

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 'Bake texture maps from a mesh (or high-poly to low-poly)', specifying the action (bake) and resource (mesh), and differentiates from more specific sibling tools like 'bake_ao' or 'bake_normal_map'.

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 on when to use this general baking tool versus specific alternatives (e.g., bake_ao, bake_normal_map). The description lacks exclusions or context for selection.

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