bake_ao

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

The annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not required to restate mutation risk. It adds context about object prerequisites, which is helpful beyond the structured data. It does not disclose overwrite behavior, file output location, or whether existing maps are replaced, but the destructive hint partially covers that gap.

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 text is short and front-loaded with purpose, but it duplicates the entire content in Chinese and English with a '[English]' marker. The bilingual duplication is not zero-waste for an AI agent, though it remains compact and readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needs to explain what the tool returns or produces; it only says a map is baked, not the return format or path. It also sits among many bake_* siblings without explaining how it relates to bake_set_output or bake_objects, leaving the agent to infer workflow context.

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%, so the schema already documents size, folder, format, and objects. The description adds no extra meaning for these parameters and does not mention defaults or relationships between them. Per the calibration baseline, this is an adequate score when the schema carries the parameter documentation weight.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: '把环境光遮蔽（AO）烘焙成一张贴图' and 'Bake ambient occlusion (AO) into a single map.' It clearly names the resource (AO map) and the verb (bake), and the mention of AO differentiates it from other bake_* siblings by map type. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with bake_texture, bake_normals, or bake_lighting beyond the AO focus.

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 provides a concrete precondition: objects need a UVW channel and a shell, and it says this is the same requirement as bake_texture. This is useful context for when the tool can be invoked. But it does not explicitly say when to choose bake_ao over sibling baking tools, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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