bake_set_output

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Set' aligns with mutation. It adds useful context by specifying 'global' scope and explaining the template placeholders (%s=object name, %e=element name). However, it does not describe overwrite semantics or side effects on existing bake settings; annotations carry some of that burden.

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 two compact sentences, one Chinese and one English, with the action and resource front-loaded before the parameter list. Every phrase contributes; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 setter with five optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient. It could explicitly state that these settings persist and apply to subsequent bake calls, but the term 'global' and the sibling context make that inferable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly defining the filename template placeholders (%s=object name, %e=element name), which an agent needs to construct correct templates. This extra semantic detail justifies a 4.

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 concrete verb ('Set') and a specific resource ('global bake output parameters'), and enumerates the five configurable aspects: folder, map size, format, filename padding, and template. The word 'bake' clearly distinguishes it from render output setters like render_set_output, and it pairs naturally with bake_get_settings.

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 clearly signals that this is the configuration step for bake output: it sets global parameters before bake operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is unambiguous and no exclusion is needed.

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