Save a named baseline

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that saving a baseline is not an undo operation and is intended for later comparison, which clarifies its side-effect-free nature (non-destructive, idempotent). This builds on the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the core purpose, the recommended timing, and the relationship to browser_diff. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no unnecessary details or redundancy.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to call this tool: before risky actions to establish a baseline for comparison. It does not specify return values or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description is adequately complete for typical usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 50% (name lacks a description, sessionId has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameters further, leaving name's purpose somewhat implicit (a label for the baseline). While sessionId's role is documented, the description does not compensate for the missing name description, so it meets only a baseline level.

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 tool's function: 'Save the currently observed state as a NAMED baseline'. It also clarifies its intended use ('before a risky action') and explicitly contrasts it with undo ('NOT undo: a comparison point for browser_diff'), distinguishing it from other tools.

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 provides usage guidance by specifying when to use it ('before a risky action') and its purpose as a comparison point for browser_diff. It explicitly states what it is not (undo), which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for choosing them.

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