config_diff

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses that nothing is committed, that the diff is credential-redacted like config_backup, why redaction is needed, and that the result includes a redaction block with a count. It also explains the include_secrets trade-off for verbatim output. This is rich, consistent behavioral context.

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?

It is front-loaded with the [READ] DRY-RUN label and core promise, then uses a compact Args list. The redaction explanation is the only longer passage and it earns its place by clarifying a non-obvious side effect.

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 4-parameter dry-run tool with no output schema and only readOnlyHint in annotations, the description supplies enough context: commit behavior, redaction behavior, parameter meanings, and the returned redaction block. No critical gap remains for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all four arguments: config_text's merge vs. replace meaning, replace's full-config behavior, include_secrets' verbatim use case, and target's device-name role. It adds semantics the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '[READ] DRY-RUN: stage a candidate, return the diff, then discard it.' It immediately distinguishes itself from committing siblings with 'Nothing is committed' and 'dry-run primitive for previewing a change.' An agent can tell this is the preview-only path without opening other schemas.

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?

It gives clear context for use—previewing a change—and specific guidance for the include_secrets flag ('use when verifying that the literal key you are pushing is the one that will land'). It does not explicitly name config_merge, config_replace, or confirm_commit as the committing alternatives, so the when-not-to-use boundary is implied rather than stated.

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