Diff blueprint

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safe read-only nature, but the description adds valuable detail about the output categories: 'missing', 'changed (with the fields)', and 'extra (informational)'. This tells the agent what kind of data to expect, going beyond merely saying 'Compare'. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but the read-only annotation lowers the bar.

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 two sentences: the first packs all functional details, the second is a memorable tagline ('The drift detector for config-as-code workflows'). No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by clearly enumerating the three result categories (missing, changed, extra) and their nature, which is the core of what the tool returns. Combined with the read-only annotation and full schema parameter coverage, this provides a complete and actionable tool definition.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (guild: 'Guild (server) name or ID...' and blueprint: 'Saved blueprint name or ID.'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already documents them; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Compare') and identifies the exact resources ('a saved blueprint against the live server'), then clarifies the comparison categories (missing, changed, extra). This clearly differentiates it from sibling blueprint management tools (list_blueprints, get_blueprint, save_blueprint, delete_blueprint, export_server_blueprint).

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 provides clear context—detecting drift in config-as-code workflows—and indicates the output is a comparison, implying when to use it (before syncing/applying). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use sync_server_template or plan_server_build instead, so it stops short of full guidance.

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