Diff two brand project versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that the tool is owner-scoped and nothing is redacted, and details how variation edits are represented ('variations.<id>.<field>' rather than wholesale swap). It also mentions the kits:read permission. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 compact and well-organized: it opens with the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, then adds scope and variation-format context, and finally states the required permission. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the key aspects needed for selection and invocation: what it does, how to use the from parameter, owner-scoping, variation edit format, and required permission. It lacks a full description of the overall output structure, but given the absence of an output schema, the provided hints are reasonably sufficient for a diff 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?

The schema already covers all 3 parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds extra meaning, particularly the 'Pass `from` alone' behavior for comparing against the current version, which clarifies the interplay between `from` and `to`. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'What changed between two versions of a brand project.' It specifies the resource (brand project versions) and the action (diff), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like diff_kit_versions and get_brand_project_version by focusing on brand projects and comparing two versions.

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 provides a clear usage pattern: 'Pass `from` alone to compare against the current version.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool. It also mentions scope ('Owner-scoped') and the required permission ('Needs kits:read'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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