map_create_bitmap

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It adds that it attaches to a material's named slot, which is useful, but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing map in the slot, nor whether it requires a selected material. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two concise paragraphs (Chinese and English) with no fluff. The key action and parameters are front-loaded, and the attachment context is given in one short phrase. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, its parameters, and its typical usage (attaching to a material slot). It does not mention the return value, but for a create operation that's often void, so this is minor. Overall, an agent has enough to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter (path, uTiling, vTiling, realWorldScale) is described in the schema. The description only restates these options without adding extra meaning (e.g., path format, interaction between realWorldScale and tiling). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 tool's purpose: creating a bitmap texture with optional file path, real-world scale, and UV tiling. It also distinguishes itself from sibling map creation tools (e.g., checker, gradient) by specifying it's for bitmap files and mentions attaching to a material's named slot, making its role 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 context: 'the most common map, attached to a material's named slot (e.g. diffuseMap).' This implies when to use it (for image-based textures) but does not explicitly contrast with procedural maps or state when not to use it. The sibling list includes many map_create_* tools, so a clearer exclusions note would elevate this.

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