review_form_three_way

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does add two substantive points: the inputs are caller-supplied (no server-side capture, unlike capture_published_form_baseline) and the result is a positional-overlap report that carries no release authority. It omits anything about the report's shape, ordering, or size limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the operation and input scope front-loaded and the non-authorization caveat second. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the title.

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 tool takes three required nested object parameters with no output schema and no documented structure, which is the largest risk for an incorrect call; the description does not compensate. For a comparison tool whose correctness depends entirely on the shape of the supplied form definitions, this is a substantial gap.

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 only 25% — only environment_profile is documented — while the three required parameters are bare nested objects with no property descriptions. The phrase 'saved main-form definitions' hints at what those objects should contain, but the agent gets no guidance on required keys, structure, or whether the three objects must be structurally comparable.

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 supplies a specific verb ('Compare') and a specific resource set ('caller-supplied baseline, source and target saved main-form definitions'), and the word 'main-form' distinguishes it from the component-level sibling. It does not name an alternative tool outright, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 a useful exclusion — 'does not merge or authorize release' — which tells the agent this is a pre-release review step, not a publishing step. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over review_component_three_way, review_form_release_scope, or compare_environment_forms, all of which sit adjacent in the same release workflow.

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