bake_objects

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description does not contradict that, nor does it elaborate on the destructive aspects. It does disclose that returns per-map write results and missing files appear in failures/written, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail what is destructive (overwriting files?) or any side effects.

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 compact, with key information up front: 'low level bake', required elements, and return behavior. Bilingual but not redundant. Each sentence adds value, though it could be shorter by dropping the bilingual repetition, but it's not bloated.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential points but lacks detail on object naming conventions, template placeholders (%s, %e), and potential failure modes beyond listing them. It doesn't explain how missing files are reported or the impact of destructiveHint. With sibling bake tools present, more context on differences would help.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the key point that elements is required and gives an example, which is helpful but not extensive. It doesn't add extra meaning beyond schema for size, folder, format, objects, template.

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 it is a low-level bake operation on a list of objects with an explicit element list, and mentions the required parameter. It distinguishes itself from higher-level bake tools like bake_texture, bake_ao, bake_normals, and bake_lighting by being low-level, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies this is the low-level alternative but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the other bake_* tools. It mentions 'low level bake' as a label, which gives context but no exclusions or alternative names.

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