bake_lightmaps

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

The description discloses two important behaviors beyond the annotations: it blocks until baking finishes and it reports model assets missing UV1. Annotations only cover readOnly, idempotence, and destructiveness, so this additional operational detail is valuable, though it does not detail all side effects.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the optional scope is stated immediately, and the behavioral/result note is concise.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential context: what is baked, how to constrain the bake, that it is synchronous, and what diagnostic information is reported. It does not describe the exact return shape, but no output schema exists and the report behavior is at least mentioned.

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 100%, and the schema already documents entityIds as optional lightmapped entity resource_ids with omit-to-bake-all semantics. The description restates this idea without adding material new parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Bake scene lightmaps', with a clear optional scope ('limited to the given entities'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that deal with modeling, textures, and scene management rather than lightmap baking.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for baking lightmaps and that entityIds can be supplied to limit the bake, with omission meaning all lightmapped entities are baked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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