bake_lighting

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the UVW channel requirement, which is a behavioral prerequisite, but does not disclose other side effects (e.g., file overwriting, render engine requirements, or performance implications). The description adds some context beyond annotations but is not rich; a 3 reflects this minimal extra value.

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 concise, with two sentences per language, and front-loads the core action and purpose. It is efficient, though the bilingual duplication doubles the length without adding new information. This is a minor inefficiency but not a significant distraction; a 4 fits the appropriately sized and front-loaded criteria.

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 straightforward baking tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the purpose, and the key prerequisite (UVW channel). It does not mention potential pitfalls like render engine requirements or overwriting behavior, but given the annotations already flag destructiveness, these are not critical gaps. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (size, folder, format, objects). The description does not add any additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description contributes nothing further here.

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 states the action ('bake lighting / a complete map'), the target resource ('LightingMap or CompleteMap'), and the purpose ('for static lighting'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bake_ao and bake_normals by specifying the lighting map type. The prerequisite (UVW channel) adds specificity. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 clear context: it is for static lighting and requires a UVW channel, which tells the agent when it is applicable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the specific purpose and prerequisite make the use case evident. It stops short of a 5 because it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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