docmgr_update_baseline

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and not read-only. The description adds valuable context: 'Mode: State-modifying (rewrites baseline files)', 'Atomically updates three baseline files', and 'This resets change detection to current state'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Use when, Result, Mode, Workflow) and is concise. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'update all baseline files' and 'resets change detection') prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the parameters. It does cover purpose and behavior thoroughly and the output schema exists so return values are not needed. The missing parameter semantics reduce completeness.

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 0% and the description does not explain the two parameters (project_path, docs_path) beyond their names. With no documentation in schema or description, the agent gets no guidance on what values to provide or their format.

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 the action ('update all baseline files') and lists the specific files affected (repo-baseline.json, symbol-baseline.json, dependencies.json). It distinguishes from siblings like docmgr_detect_changes (detects changes) and docmgr_sync (syncronizes).

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when: After updating documentation to match code changes, resetting the clean baseline' and includes a typical workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, which would elevate it to 5.

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