design.track_changes

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the tool is expected to perform mutations. The description adds context by detailing the change score (0-1) and per-section categories (added/removed/modified/unchanged), which helps the agent understand the behavioral output beyond the basic action listing.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses bilingual text but each version is succinct. There is no redundant information, though the bilingual format doubles length unnecessarily for a single-agent scenario. Still, it earns its place.

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?

The tool has five parameters, two required, and no output schema. The description explains the actions and the change visualization metrics, but does not cover return values in detail (e.g., structure of history results, error conditions). The information provided is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a no-output-schema 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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of them. The tool description provides overall context (e.g., actions, change visualization) but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for individual parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool tracks design changes of the same URL over time, listing four specific actions (snapshot, compare, history, detect) and providing metrics (change score, per-section categories). This distinguishes it from siblings like design.compare, which likely handles one-off comparisons.

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 lists the actions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is given on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose for different tasks. The actions themselves imply usage scenarios, but explicit direction is missing.

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