material.bake

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

The annotations provide no read-only, idempotency, or destructiveness hints, and the description adds no behavioral disclosure. It does not state that baking writes texture image files, mutates material state, or requires authorization beyond the generic policy note. 'Risk: standard' is not a 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?

The text is short but not effectively concise: one sentence restates the tool name, and the other states generic policy that applies broadly. Neither sentence earns its place by conveying tool-specific information.

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 10 parameters, 3 required parameters, an enum, and no explanatory description beyond the command name, the definition is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what 'bake' produces, where output goes, what side effects occur, or when this tool is appropriate.

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 only 30%, and the description contributes nothing to parameter understanding. Required parameters such as object, relativePath, and _transactionId are undocumented, and the meaning of bakeType values, width/height units, and margin is left entirely to inference.

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 merely restates the tool identifier as 'PartMe Blender Harness command `material.bake`' without explaining what baking does. It offers no verb+resource explanation and no differentiation from sibling material tools such as material_assign, material_create_pbr, or material_attach_image_texture.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned, and there is no note about required scene state such as UV maps or object selection. The statement about per-request argument checks and session policy is generic process overhead, not usage direction.

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