arm_update_baseline_revision

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

There are no annotations, and the description only says 'Updates the baseline revision' without disclosing potential side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or failure behavior. For a mutation operation, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the HTTP method and endpoint, then the action. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool's full behavioral context is under-specified. It doesn't cover what the response looks like, error conditions, or special cases, making it incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 schema already documents both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic meaning or usage details beyond the endpoint prefix, so 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 that the tool updates the baseline revision for a CI job, using a specific HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arm_trigger_build or arm_abort_ci_job.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. It merely states what it does, leaving usage context implied at best.

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