rupa_bake

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

Annotations only mark the tool as destructive, so the description's added detail is valuable: it discloses automatic UV creation, cage distance computed from surface difference, a reported result with UV coverage and pixel variation, and a specific limitation (reverse direction is checked by polygon density, not from the image). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 description is three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose in the first, key algorithmic behavior in the second, and an important edge-case limitation in the third. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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 complex 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives important behavioral context and result reporting, but it omits guidance on map types, output-file expectations, and several tuning parameters. It is minimally adequate but leaves noticeable gaps for an agent to call it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 50%, with descriptions on cage, ruang, berkas, rendah, and tinggi. The description adds semantic value by clarifying the low/high mesh roles and the cage-distance logic, but it does not explain several undocumented parameters such as jenis, ukuran, contoh, margin, or jarak_sinar. It provides some compensation but not full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Panggang') and resource ('detail dari mesh RAPAT ke mesh RENGGANG jadi peta tekstur'), making the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, but the high-to-low mesh baking direction is distinct enough from sibling texture tools.

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 implies the tool should be used when baking detail from a dense mesh onto a sparse mesh to produce a texture map, and mentions automatic UV creation and cage calculation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like rupa_tekstur_buat, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites.

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