Api document revisions edit diff retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output shape (unified diff), which is useful, but says nothing about failure modes when an edit id is missing or whether cross-document edits are rejected.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the operation and its operands come first. Nothing redundant and nothing that merely restates the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does specify the return format (unified diff), which is the key missing piece filled in. However, for a 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage it leaves an agent unsure where edit ids come from (edit_history_retrieve / edit_snapshot_retrieve) and what 'id' refers to.

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 all three params (id, edit_a_id, edit_b_id) are bare strings. The description only implies that the two edit_* params are DocumentEdit snapshots; it never clarifies that 'id' is the document/revision identifier nor the ordering semantics (a vs. b) used to render the diff.

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?

States a specific verb (compute unified diff) and a specific resource (two DocumentEdit content snapshots), which is meaningfully narrower than the sibling document_revisions_diff_retrieve (revision-level diff). It does not explicitly name that sibling or explain edits vs. revisions, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named among the many revision/edit siblings (edit_snapshot_retrieve, edit_history_retrieve, diff_retrieve). The agent must infer the use case from the single sentence.

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