vrc_bake_atlas

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool bakes materials, re-maps UVs, and reduces material count. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting UVs, creation of new image textures) or require permissions. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff.

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 covers purpose, parameters, and use case. It does not mention return values, but an output schema exists. For a modestly complex tool (3 parameters, no enums), it is reasonably complete.

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 clear parameter explanations: mesh_name (target mesh, default fallback), atlas_size (resolution, with Quest recommendation), output_path (save location). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema defaults and types.

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 tool bakes multiple materials into a single texture atlas and re-maps UVs to reduce material count for VRChat performance. It uses a specific verb ('bake') and resource ('texture atlas'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling bake 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?

The description implies usage for combining materials for VRChat performance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., other bake tools or merge_materials). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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