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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context on top: it explicitly spells out that existing baselines and the plan itself are untouched, and that repeated calls produce duplicate baselines, which explains the practical consequence of non-idempotency. The 'Requires write permission' note adds auth context. It stops short of describing the response or any failure modes.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first, then the non-effects, then the duplicate-call caveat, then the permission requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, duplicate behavior, and permission requirements. The only minor gap is that it does not indicate what the caller gets back (e.g. an identifier for the new baseline), which would help chained calls.

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%, with both projectId and name documented in the schema, including the name default of today's date. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Saves the current plan ... as a new baseline') and enumerates what is captured (dates, durations, work, costs), which is far more informative than the title alone. It implicitly separates itself from planitude_list_baselines, but never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, planitude_save_version, which also snapshots project state.

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?

Usage is implied through 'for later comparison' and the note that calling it twice saves two baselines, so an agent can infer this is a deliberate snapshot action rather than a frequent one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of when to prefer planitude_save_version or planitude_list_baselines instead.

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