armorpaint_bake

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

Annotations only state readOnly false and destructive false, so the tool's file-writing behavior needs description coverage; the text provides that by stating the result is a PNG. It also reveals important behavioral requirements such as high-poly dependencies and ray tracing dependencies. It does not discuss runtime or the exact side effects of overwrite, but the annotation context makes this a solid score.

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?

Four sentences with no fluff: the main action, the full type map, prerequisites, and persistence workflow are all included. Information is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every sentence adds something the schema does not already state.

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 11 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description clarifies only the type and high-poly dependency. Numeric parameters like offset, radius, samples, and strength remain only name/range-guessable. The workflow advice and existing output schema help, but notable gaps remain for choosing values correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It fully explains type and clarifies when high_poly_object is needed, which is valuable. However, offset, radius, smooth, samples, layer_id, strength, overwrite, material_id, and path_name are left to their names and ranges rather than explained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: Bake a mesh map to PNG using ArmorPaint. It then enumerates all 14 map types, so an agent knows exactly what operation this tool performs. This distinguishes it from export/capture siblings by naming bake as its own operation.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for correct use, including which types require a high-poly object and which require ray tracing. It also gives high-level workflow steps: use a regular paint layer and import the exported image for persistent reuse. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as export_textures, but the contextual guidance is strong.

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