prompt_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses basic behavior for each action (e.g., snapshot captures into local history, rollback pushes an old prompt back), but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or permissions. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured, with a single introductory phrase followed by three short, explanatory definitions for each action. Every sentence adds value and the format is easy to parse.

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 description covers the core action list but omits essential context for the version parameters, output/return values, and potential side effects. Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description only explains the 'action' enum values, which are already defined in the schema. The parameters 'assistantId', 'fromVersion', and 'toVersion' are not described at all, leaving the agent to infer their purpose and format.

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 clearly states the tool's function: version and diff assistant prompts, with explicit actions (snapshot, diff, rollback) and what each does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on listing agents, deploying, or running evals.

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 usage through the action semantics (e.g., snapshot to capture, diff to compare, rollback to revert), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear but not fully directive.

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