prepare_visual_baseline

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It adds that the tool does not formally adopt a baseline and requires user authorization, which clarifies the side-effect profile beyond the annotations. It also mentions the return of a summary and preview, giving a partial picture of behavior, though it does not detail any state changes or object creation.

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 a single, dense sentence with no fluff; the core action is front-loaded and followed by key behavioral caveats. Every clause adds information. It is appropriately sized for the content it covers.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotation hints, the description leaves significant gaps: no parameter explanations, no usage guidance versus siblings, and no description of the returned summary/preview structure. It is enough to hint at purpose but not enough for an agent to correctly populate the complex inputs. The tool appears non-trivial (imports array of objects) and needs richer 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 burden falls entirely on the description, but it mentions no parameters at all. The text does not explain the roles of projectPath, caseIds, viewportIds, or imports or how they relate to the prepared baseline candidates. An agent must guess parameter semantics from property names alone.

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 'prepare visual baseline candidates' and its immediate outputs ('returns summary and preview'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling approve_visual_baseline by noting it does not adopt a formal baseline. This gives an agent a specific verb-object pair and a differentiating constraint.

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 implies this is a pre-approval step by stating it does not adopt a formal baseline, and it notes user authorization is required. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus approve_visual_baseline or the other task siblings, nor gives any exclusion criteria. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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