templates_diff

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses multiple behavioral nuances: it refuses to read the guild if guild_id mismatches, raw names are isolated in untrusted_text, Discord-managed roles are excluded, and missing optional fields require manual review. These are valuable, non-obvious behaviors that the annotations do not capture.

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 well-structured into Purpose, Safety, and Returns sections. Every sentence delivers necessary information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates on critical safety and return details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, safety constraints, comparison scope, exclusions, and the return shape. The mention of manual review for missing fields fills a completeness gap that a simple function description would leave open.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both guild_id and template_code. The description adds some context about guild_id being the source guild and refusing mismatches, but this is largely behavioral rather than new parameter semantics. The schema already carries the load, so a baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Detect channel and role drift between a Guild Template snapshot and its source guild before templates_sync.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like templates_sync (which performs the sync) and other template tools by emphasizing its role as a pre-sync detector.

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 explicitly positions this tool as a precursor to templates_sync, which tells the agent when to use it. It also states 'This tool is read-only and never syncs the template,' implying templates_sync should be used when syncing is desired, and its safety notes explain when manual review is needed. This provides clear usage context relative to alternatives.

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