Diff two kit 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 excels. It discloses output structure, the effect of omitting `from` or `to`, that it reports mechanical changes without judging their significance, and detailed redaction behavior for unauthorized Pro kits (including the exact shape of redacted objects and counts). It even mentions the required `kits:read` permission. This is exemplary transparency.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core result, then guides usage, then covers edge cases and permissions. There is zero fluff or repetition; density of useful information is high.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description successfully covers purpose, output shape, usage patterns, permission requirements, and a nuanced redaction case. An agent has enough context to decide when to call it and what to expect from the response, even without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the semantic distinction between passing `from` alone versus both bounds, ties `from` to the version recorded in identityforge.json, and explains how redaction affects parameter output. This goes beyond the schema's terse parameter 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 starts with a concrete, specific verb ('diff') and resource ('two versions of a kit'), then enumerates exactly what the output contains: paths with old/new values, CSS custom properties, and a mechanical summary. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like diff_brand_project_versions by focusing on kits and even contrasts with reading DESIGN.md. This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 explicitly says 'This is the tool for taking a brand change into a codebase' and explains the common pattern of passing `from` alone to compare against the current version. It also warns against relying on re-reading DESIGN.md as an alternative. However, it does not name specific sibling tools (e.g., get_kit_version, diff_brand_project_versions) or explicitly say 'use X instead,' so it stops short of full alternative differentiation.

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