align_check_drift

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile (non-destructive but potentially state-affecting) is already carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the check is recorded/persisted, what a drift verdict looks like, or what thresholds define drift. There is mild tension between the read-flavored verb 'Check' and readOnlyHint=false, but it is plausibly explained by the tool logging the check rather than being a true contradiction.

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 zero filler; the comparison target and the anchor are both stated up front. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to guide an agent on how to act on the result.

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, so the description should say at least roughly what a drift check yields (boolean, drift list, confidence), and it does not. Combined with no guidance on alternatives among many similarly named siblings, the definition is minimally viable but leaves real gaps for a 3-parameter analysis 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (decision_id, content, source_type) are already documented in the schema, including the enum-like value hints in source_type's description. The description re-states the decision_id/content relationship but adds no new binding semantics such as size limits, required format, or how source_type affects interpretation, so the 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 names a specific verb and outcome ('Check if ... has drifted') against a specific resource class ('code or configuration') relative to a named anchor ('a specific decision'). An agent can tell this is a drift-inspection tool rather than a generic alignment tool like align_check_alignment, though the distinction from align_stale_code is left implicit.

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 only implied by the phrasing: it suggests calling this when you have a decision_id and a piece of content to compare. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the 14 siblings (e.g., align_stale_code or align_check_alignment), so routing must be inferred from names alone.

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