compare_branches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-schema facts: the output is a Mermaid sequenceDiagram and the tool is gated behind Kiln Pro. However it says nothing about side effects, permissions beyond tier, whether the result is cached, or error behavior for invalid branches.

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 first sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but nearly two-thirds of the text is upsell copy ('branch, restyle, compare outcomes...', pricing link) that does not help the agent invoke the tool correctly. The single useful gate line is buried.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 25% parameter coverage across 4 parameters leaves the definition thin. The description establishes purpose and a tier gate but omits parameter meaning, return semantics, and any failure behavior an agent would need to call it reliably.

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 only 25% (just artifact_type's default). The description's 'two branches' loosely corresponds to branch_a and branch_b, but it never explains whether those are names, IDs, or refs, and artifact_id is undocumented in both schema and description. Compensating value is minimal.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource — render a side-by-side comparison of two branches as a Mermaid sequenceDiagram — and the output format is a genuinely distinguishing trait versus siblings like diff_design_versions or cross_branch_ab_report. It does not, however, differentiate itself from those alternatives, and the marketing paragraphs dilute the core statement.

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?

'Requires Kiln Pro' states a licensing prerequisite, which is useful gating context, but there is no when-to-use vs when-to-use-something-else guidance. Nothing tells the agent when compare_branches is the right choice over cross_branch_ab_report, show_branch_history, or diff_design_versions.

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