proofpage_diff_revisions

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does add useful context by sketching the return payload (changed lines with old/new text, word and number changes, statistics) and flagging that revision text is untrusted data. It stops short of stating that the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid or mismatched revision IDs, or any permission 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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the untrusted-data caveat. Nothing repeats the name or wastes the agent's attention.

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 no annotations, so the description has to do the work; it does describe the shape of the diff result, which is the main thing an agent needs. However, it leaves the two required parameters completely unexplained, which is a real gap for a tool whose only inputs are those two IDs.

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% – neither from_revision_id nor to_revision_id is documented anywhere. The phrase 'old and new text' only weakly implies that from_revision_id is the older baseline and to_revision_id the newer target; the description never states that ordering or where revision IDs come from.

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+resource ('Compare two stored revisions') and even enumerates what the comparison yields (changed lines, word and number changes, statistics). It does not name any sibling tool as an alternative, but the diff-specific framing clearly separates it from list_changes and get_item.

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?

Usage is implied by 'two stored revisions' – you call it when you have two revision IDs in hand. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that both revisions should belong to the same item), and no pointer to alternatives such as proofpage_get_item or proofpage_list_changes.

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