diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether the comparison is read-only, how missing fields or absent resources are handled, or what the diff result contains, leaving real behavioral gaps for a tool whose output is the whole point.

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 no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse given the behavioral and usage gaps, so it is not a 5.

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?

With four parameters, a nested draft object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum characterize the diff result and the read-only nature of the operation. It provides none of that, leaving an agent under-informed about calling and interpreting this tool.

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 75%, above the midpoint but below the 80% baseline, and the schema already documents slug, draft, ignore_fields, and the resource_type enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., ignore_fields semantics or draft object shape), so it neither compensates for nor improves on the schema.

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 (compare) and the two resources involved (draft entry vs. live API version), so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like validate_entry or get. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or the domain resource types, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus validate_entry, get, or normalize, and no mention of prerequisites such as the entry needing to already exist or be a valid draft. The intended workflow (e.g., checking changes before publish/PATCH) is only inferable.

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