bake

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is non-destructive (bakes into a 'copy'), the output formats, and an approximate duration (~1 minute), but says nothing about prerequisites, what the spec must contain, or where the result is written.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the duration and format details are useful rather than redundant. Slightly compressed parentheses cost a point but the sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with a nested spec object, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is too thin. It omits what spec must contain, whether the spec should come from spec_for_modellab/validate_spec, and where the baked copy lands.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. A single reference to 'wear masks' weakly implies the spec configures wear, but the nested spec object and the optional name parameter remain completely unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ('bakes') and resource (wear masks into a copy of the model), plus concrete output formats (.blend/FBX). It does not distinguish itself explicitly from siblings like render_variants or validate_spec, leaving the agent to infer where it fits in the pipeline.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no named alternative. The parenthetical 'FBX for an engine, .blend for renders' hints at output choice but does not tell the agent when to call bake versus render_variants or validate_spec first.

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