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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: Retry-After handling, the 100-entry cap, v1 lock-file upgrade behavior, and the explicit safety rule about not deleting local files without user confirmation. There is no clear contradiction with the annotations.

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 long but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers return types, upgrade behavior, limits, rate-limit handling, and safety. Each sentence contributes meaningful detail, though the dense single-paragraph structure is slightly harder to scan than bulleted guidance would be.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns: unchanged/changed/unavailable statuses, detailed summaries, and explicit actions. It also covers v1 upgrades, request limits, Retry-After, and deletion safety. It is less complete on how to populate the entities parameter and leaves terms like 'weighted sync budget' and 'review-removal actions' partially undefined, but overall it is strong for a complex planning tool.

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, but it never explicitly names or explains the 'entities' parameter structure. It indirectly references entity kinds and snapshot behavior, and mentions the 100-entry limit, but it does not explain required fields, the verbatim snapshot copy rule, or how to construct each entry. The schema has some nested descriptions, but the description itself leaves a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') and names the exact resource ('assets/spriteship/spriteship.lock.json' vs current SpriteShip state). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling get/list tools by emphasizing 'in one call' and by describing the unique statuses and actions it returns.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to compare lock-file versions against current state and obtain a sync plan. It also covers the v1 upgrade path and request limits. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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