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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world). The description adds real value beyond them: the authorization requirement, plan availability, and exactly what data the snapshot freezes. It stops short of saying whether repeated captures create multiple baselines or what the returned snapshot contains.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and scope, then append the authorization and plan constraints. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 a trivial two-parameter input, the description supplies the essentials: what is captured, who may call it, and availability. It lacks any statement of side effects (does capturing a baseline alter project state, or how it relates to existing baselines), which is the only meaningful remaining gap.

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 50%: `name` is documented in the schema (with its default), while the required `projectId` has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required field, though `projectId` is self-explanatory.

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 ("point-in-time baseline snapshot of a project") and enumerates the captured content (tasks, dates, progress, EVM). It is clearly distinguishable from get_baseline/compare_baseline/list_baselines by action, though it never names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Gives strong prerequisites ("Caller must be a project Owner or Manager", "Available on every plan") which help an agent decide whether the call can succeed. However, it offers no guidance on when to snapshot versus when to read or compare existing baselines, so alternative-selection is left implicit.

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