diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a valuable trait for apply—context-based hunk matching so patches survive shifted lines—but omits mutation/permission details, and does not mention dry_run or what the tool returns.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parenthetical mode definitions. Every clause contributes information, though bullets would be slightly easier 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 10-parameter tool with three modes and no output schema, the description covers mode selection and a key apply behavior. However, it does not describe return values, dry_run semantics, or error handling, leaving gaps that the missing output schema cannot fill.

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 100%, so the parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds action-to-parameter grouping (files uses path/to, text uses a/b, apply uses path/patch), but no syntax or format details beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource (compare/patch text) and enumerates the three modes: files, text, apply. Each mode is defined concisely, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from file_edit or search_text without opening the schema.

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 when to use each action: files for two file paths, text for inline strings, apply for a unified diff. There are no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g., use file_edit instead), but the mode descriptions provide strong selection guidance.

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