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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable specifics beyond them: that it overwrites prior baseline data and that it requires Administrator or ProjectManager role. It doesn't clarify whether re-running is a no-op vs a re-snapshot, but the added auth and overwrite context is meaningful.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, the overwrite consequence, and the auth prerequisite – each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded.

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 single-param mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, side effect, and auth. Minor gap: it doesn't state the result (e.g., number of tasks baselined or empty-project behavior), but that is a small omission.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (capture) and resource (baseline of every task in the project), enumerates what is captured (title, status, dates, progress), and names the purpose (plan-vs-actual comparison). It is clearly distinguishable from clear_project_baseline and the various get_* reporting siblings.

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 plan-vs-actual purpose gives a clear context for when to use it, and it warns that an existing baseline will be overwritten. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with clear_project_baseline or get_earned_value, so the agent must infer the alternative route.

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