bake_normals

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/destructive nature is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the requirement of a UVW channel and that the high/low relationship depends on RTT projection setup. This helps the agent anticipate prerequisites and potential failure points, going beyond what annotations provide.

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, consisting of two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids fluff and provides the essential prerequisites in a structured bilingual format. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and constraints.

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 tool is moderately complex, but the description covers the key prerequisites (UVW channel, RTT projection) and the action. It does not mention the output file behavior (e.g., whether the map is assigned to the material or just written to disk) or potential side effects beyond the destructiveHint annotation. However, given the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it 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 schema covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics (e.g., default behavior of 'objects' falling back to selection) beyond what the schema already states, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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) and the resource (a normal map) and specifies the source (high-poly cage) and target (low-poly shell). It distinguishes itself from sibling bake tools by explicitly naming 'NormalMap' and mentioning the RTT projection relationship, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear prerequisites: requires a UVW channel and the high/low relationship is governed by RTT projection setup. This tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., bake_ao, bake_lighting) or state when not to use this tool, so it misses explicit exclusion guidance.

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