Select baseline

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, and the description usefully adds that the operation is a single undo step and that it is refused in a portfolio (a real error condition). It stops short of describing what happens to the previously selected baseline, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the boundary with siblings, then the refusal condition and undo behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the mutation, its scope, sibling boundaries, the undo cost, and the failure case, which is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains the 'number' parameter including the 0 = dynamic baseline semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Selects the baseline') and scopes it to the planned-versus-actual comparison. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools that create/delete baselines and the one that reads the comparison.

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?

Names the alternatives (rillsoft_baseline_create, rillsoft_baseline_delete, rillsoft_variance_report_get) with the condition that selects each, and states an explicit exclusion: it is refused in a portfolio. Nothing is left to inference.

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