map_create_normal

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description does not explain what side effects occur, such as overwriting an existing map, modifying the current material, or requiring a selection. The description only restates the creation action and purpose without disclosing the destructive behavior beyond the annotation flag.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Chinese and English text are direct and free of filler, though the English portion largely duplicates the Chinese portion, so it is slightly redundant but 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the operational details are entirely in the description, but it omits important context: where the map is created, what material or object it applies to, and what destructive consequences the annotation hints at. An agent would not know whether calling this tool requires a selected material, object, or existing map.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, this is a healthy baseline: the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps because there are no parameters.

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 identifies the tool as creating a Normal Bump map and states its intended use: applying baked high-poly normals to a low-poly mesh. The verb and resource are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bake_normals or other map_create_* tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a Normal Bump map to apply baked normals onto a low-poly mesh. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is explicit enough for an agent to understand the intended scenario.

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