compare_documents

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

The description says it 'produces a tracked-changes output document', implying a write operation (creating a new file). However, annotations mark readOnlyHint as true, which contradicts this behavior. No mention of permissions or side effects beyond file creation. The contradiction lowers transparency.

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, no unnecessary words, and efficiently communicates the tool's core behavior and parameter relationships. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 description covers the main use cases and parameter options. However, it does not clarify behavior when both original_file_path/revised_file_path and file_path are provided, nor does it specify overwrite behavior for save_to_local_path. Given the moderate complexity (6 parameters, 2 modes), the description is largely complete but has minor gaps.

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 already provides good descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by grouping original_file_path+revised_file_path and file_path as two distinct usage modes, which is not evident from individual schema descriptions. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 the tool compares two DOCX files and produces a tracked-changes output. It specifies two usage modes: standalone comparison with original and revised paths, or session edit comparison with a single file_path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_revisions or accept_changes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use original_file_path+revised_file_path versus file_path, but it does not advise when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives among siblings (e.g., extract_revisions). The guidance is present but limited.

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