diff_workflow_versions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys non-mutating intent ('Compare'/'see what changed') and specifies the kind of change reported. It does not disclose output shape, directionality of the diff, or any limitations beyond node-level changes.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a parenthetical adding the most useful outcome detail. No filler or redundant wording.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover purpose and expected outcome; it does state the outcome at a high level. However, it omits the return format and whether ID ordering matters, which an agent would need for fully confident use.

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 each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds the node-change context but does not clarify semantic details such as whether backupId1 is the base and backupId2 is the target. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compare') and a specific resource ('two workflow backup versions'), and tells the agent what kind of result to expect ('nodes added/removed/modified'). This clearly differentiates it from backup, restore, and list backup siblings.

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?

Gives clear context: use this when you need to inspect differences between backup versions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous and does not overlap with any sibling tool.

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