anim_bake

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

The description discloses concrete behavior beyond annotations: per-frame sampling, writing explicit keyframes, and returning the key count. It aligns with the destructiveHint annotation and adds valuable rationale about engine limitations. It could mention that existing keys may be overwritten, but the destructive hint already covers the risk profile.

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 bilingual description is compact and purposeful, with each sentence contributing either the action, the rationale, or the return value. The English/Chinese repetition is not waste given the dual-language audience, and the key info is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the operation, the rationale, and the return value, while the schema handles all parameter defaults. The only notable gap is not mentioning the closely related sibling anim_bake_range, which could leave an agent unsure which bake tool to choose in some 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (step, objects, endFrame, properties, startFrame) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the specific operation: sampling a procedural/constraint-driven track per frame and writing explicit keyframes, with a clear purpose of preparing for game engine export. It also states the return value (number of keys written). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool anim_bake_range, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 gives strong when-to-use guidance: 'ALWAYS bake before FBX export' because engines cannot evaluate procedural controllers, constraints, or expressions. This is clear and actionable context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, 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.