godot_bake_lightmaps

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fails to mention that baking is a potentially slow, project-modifying operation that generates or overwrites baked lightmap data, and that it depends on prior GI node setup. The verb 'bake' implies data generation, but side effects and performance characteristics are left unstated.

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?

One sentence with a front-loaded verb and zero filler words; every word earns its place. It is efficiently structured, though so terse that it leaves behavioral and usage dimensions under-specified — a deficit penalized in those dimensions rather than here.

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 bake operation with no informative annotations, the absence of usage context, side-effect disclosure, and prerequisite guidance leaves an agent under-equipped. The existence of an output schema mitigates the return-value gap, but the description still omits actionable context about this costly, state-changing operation.

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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description needed to compensate by explaining bake_mode, save_path, and lightmap_node_path — it explains none of them. The only hint ('lightmap or voxel GI') merely restates what the schema's lightmap_node_path field already says, adding no meaning beyond the input schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Trigger'), a clear resource ('lightmap or voxel GI baking'), and a scope ('the active scene'), which reads distinctly from siblings like godot_configure_lightmap_gi (configures rather than bakes) and godot_bake_navmesh (bakes a different resource type). However, it never names an alternative outright, so it misses the top tier reserved for explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to invoke this tool versus godot_configure_lightmap_gi or godot_bake_navmesh, and no mention of prerequisites such as a configured LightmapGI/VoxelGI node being present in the scene. The 'active scene' phrase is the only contextual hint, giving an agent no real routing help.

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