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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a non-destructive operation. It also transparently states the need for project context and clarifies the comparison basis (linked snapshot vs current spec), with no hidden side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences pack the purpose, modes, constraint, and context requirement without redundancy. The structure is logically ordered and easy to parse.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only check with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, the required precondition, and the main constraint. No critical information is missing for an agent to use it effectively.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description reinforces semantics by mapping each mode to the relevant parameter and explains the checkAgainstLinkedVersion option in single mode, adding clarifying context beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the specific action (check for schema drift), the target resource (between a test case's linked endpoint snapshot and the current spec), and distinguishes its dual modes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_contract_drift or list_contract_drift by focusing on test-case-linked drift.

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?

Explicitly describes the two modes (single test case via testCaseId, batch via specId), the constraint that exactly one must be provided, and the requirement for project context. This gives unambiguous guidance on how and when to invoke the tool.

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