changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the reply: whether the revision is still the design head, what was written since, ordering oldest first, diff notes, and the `origin` field. It does not explicitly state it is non-mutating, but 'check' and the described reply imply a read-only operation.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the reply structure and the critical call timing. Each paragraph earns its place, and the mention of `edit` rejection is essential context rather than 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?

Given a single required parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers everything needed: what the tool checks, what to pass, what the reply contains, and when it should be called. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the schema already says 'Revision you believe is current — normally the one your last `edit` returned.' The description repeats this guidance and adds workflow context, but it does not convey substantially new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the user changed a design in the browser editor since you last touched it.' It also names the workflow relationship to `edit` and `view`, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `history` or `inspect`.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this before your first `edit` of a design whenever the user may have had the `view` page open.' It explains the consequence of not doing so by noting that `edit` rejects a parent containing editor saves. It does not name an alternative tool, but the condition is clear.

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