glass_baseline_save

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

Annotations are thin (only safety hints), so the description carries the behavioral burden — and it delivers: silent replacement of existing names, persistence across glass_stop, and expiry at server exit are all explicitly disclosed. 'Settle first if animating' also pre-announces a likely failure mode for unstable windows.

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 terse sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core action, the animation prerequisite, replacement behavior, and lifecycle semantics. Primary purpose is front-loaded with zero filler.

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-parameter save operation with no output schema, the description covers action, prerequisite, side effects, and lifecycle. The only unaddressed gap is the success/return signal, which is minor for a tool this simple.

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% — the schema already documents the ASCII character restriction, silent replacement, and downstream consumers for the name parameter. The description repeats the consumers rather than adding new parameter-specific meaning, matching the baseline baseline of 3.

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 + resource ('Save the whole current window as a named pixel baseline') and names the downstream consumers (glass_diff, glass_wait_for_region), differentiating it from capture-only siblings like glass_screenshot. The 'whole current window' scope makes the action precise and immediately actionable.

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?

Provides clear usage context by naming the two tools that consume baselines and gives a concrete prerequisite ('Settle first if animating') that ties into sibling tools like glass_wait_stable. It doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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