Api document revisions diff retrieve

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful constraint that the two revisions must belong to the same document, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any authorization requirements.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler.

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 simple read-only diff tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the same-document constraint. It still omits useful context such as the return format (unified diff text) and failure conditions when revisions belong to different documents.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that `id` is 'this revision' and `other_id` is 'another' revision of the same document, which adds relational meaning, but it does not explain accepted ID formats or whether these are revision IDs versus document IDs.

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: 'Compute unified diff' between revisions of a document. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `document_revisions_edit_diff_retrieve` or explain how that diff differs.

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 implies the use case—comparing two revisions of the same document—and states the constraint that `other_id` must belong to the same document. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions.

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