unreal_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description goes beyond them with important semantics: no scene change and missing/unavailable inspections are unverifiable rather than proof of deletion or success. This adds non-obvious behavioral context that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 and front-loaded, with the core comparison stated first and caveats following. Every sentence earns its place, though the final 'No scene change' partially duplicates information already available in the annotations.

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 single-parameter diff tool with an output schema, the description covers the key semantics, safety profile, and result interpretation. It does not explicitly say where snapshot_id comes from or what happens with invalid IDs, but the context is adequate for selecting and invoking the 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning; it indirectly explains snapshot_id by calling it a retained selected-actor baseline. However, it never names snapshot_id or explains how to obtain/format it, so the compensation is partial despite the parameter name being fairly self-explanatory.

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?

Description clearly states the operation: compare a retained actor baseline against a fresh read, and lists what it reports (field changes, identity/freshness limits). It is specific about the resource and verb, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools such as unreal_verify or unreal_workflow_inspect.

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 conveys the context in which the tool is useful—comparing a stored baseline with a current editor state—and warns that missing actors are unverifiable rather than deletion proof. It never states when to choose unreal_diff over alternative inspection or verification tools, leaving usage boundaries to inference.

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