Prepare Strategy Changes

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

Annotations already provide idempotent and non-destructive hints, so the description adds valuable context about the no-write/no-approve boundary, the signed change token, and the printed local approval command. This clarifies the two-phase workflow beyond the annotations.

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 three tight sentences. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the most important output detail and the dependency on the approval command. No filler.

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 workflow and output are reasonably covered, and the output schema likely documents return details. However, the parameter contract is completely undocumented and there is no guidance about preparing the required hashes/validation token, leaving a meaningful gap for a six-parameter 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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six required parameters. Terms like validation_token, expected_target_hashes, target_relative_dir, and idempotency_key are left to the agent to infer from names alone.

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 states a specific action ('prepare an exact diff') and explicitly scopes what it does not do ('does not approve or write the target'). This clearly distinguishes it from apply_strategy_changes and other strategy tools.

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 implies when to use this tool by noting that apply_strategy_changes requires the approval created here. It provides a clear sequencing hint, though it does not explicitly say 'use this before apply_strategy_changes' or mention alternative tools.

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