baseline_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares immutability, determinism ('same state -> identical bytes'), byte-level fingerprinting, and the optional sidecar write via 'out'. It omits collision/overwrite behavior for an existing label and any permission requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then lists parameters, then return/determinism. Efficient overall, though the parenthetical jargon ('issue #142, C3', '{item: revision + content fingerprint}') adds density without much selection value.

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 6-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters, side effects, determinism, and a brief return note ('Returns the baseline object'). It is nearly complete, missing only collision/overwrite and auth context.

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%, so the description must compensate and does: all six parameters (label, registry, items, base_dir, note, out) are individually explained with meaning and defaults. This is exactly the value-add the schema lacks.

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 (pin/create) and resource (a labeled, immutable BASELINE snapshot over an items.json registry), with concrete analogies (git-tag/lockfile over the item graph). An agent can distinguish it from baseline_verify or release_package without opening any schema.

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 stated purpose ('for reproducible rebuilds', 'verifiable byte-for-byte') implies when it is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs the sibling baseline_verify, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from context.

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