whodb_platform_bundle_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses the shape of the result (create/skip actions) and the per-call workspace targeting semantics that do not mutate session defaults. It stops short of explaining pagination or conflict-flag interactions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison action, then input provenance, then scoping behavior. No filler or restated boilerplate, though the third sentence could be trimmed since workspace details live in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and all five parameters are fully described in the schema. Combined with annotation coverage, the description supplies enough for correct invocation; only the relationship to sibling bundle_import/import_plan tools is left unaddressed.

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 every parameter (prefix, workspace fields, bundle_json, rename_conflicts, overwrite_conflicts) is already documented. The description only reinforces where bundle_json comes from and that workspace targeting is call-scoped; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 resources: compare a project bundle against the selected hosted project, which is clearly distinct from importing or exporting. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling whodb_platform_bundle_import_plan, which likely also previews bundle application.

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?

It gives the source of the required input (whodb_platform_bundle_export or CLI resources export) and states the read-only nature, which is useful context for when to reach for it. It never states when NOT to use it or how it differs from whodb_platform_bundle_import_plan / whodb_platform_bundle_import, leaving the key routing decision to inference.

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