prepare_visual_baseline

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

Annotations already declare mutability and non-destructiveness, but the description adds that user authorization is required and that it returns a summary and preview. However, it does not disclose any side effects beyond not adopting the baseline, such as whether it reads or writes files, or affects task state. So it provides some context but not deep behavioral detail.

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 brief and to the point. The key information (purpose, non-adoption, auth requirement) is front-loaded. It does not include fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured to list parameters, but overall it is concise.

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 4 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what each parameter is for, how they interact, or expectations (e.g., if projectPath is required, how to specify imports). The absence of output schema also means the description should clarify return structure, which it only vaguely does with 'summary and preview'.

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. The description does not explain any parameter semantics (e.g., what caseIds, imports, viewportIds mean). It only mentions 'prepare', which gives no parameter-level insight. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('prepare') and resource ('visual baseline'), and clarifies it is a candidate, not a formal baseline. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'approve_visual_baseline' by indicating it is not adopting the baseline. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'get_task_report'.

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 implicitly conveys the purpose through 'candidate', but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It lacks exclusions, e.g., when to use 'approve_visual_baseline' instead. The user authorization requirement is mentioned, which is a usage prerequisite.

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