compare_business_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool shows missing rules and property differences, implying a read-only comparison. However, it does not address authentication needs, data sensitivity (passwords in params), or any side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 (4 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose sentence. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, many optional), the description is sufficient for a standard diff scenario but incomplete for parameter guidance. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the low param coverage and missing security notes leave gaps.

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 29%. The description adds no per-parameter explanation beyond the schema's minimal descriptions (e.g., instance_a_dc gets 'Data center...'). Most parameters like rule_name, instance_a_user, and passwords lack semantic guidance in the description.

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 it compares business rules between two SF instances, showing differences and property changes. This specific verb+resource combo distinguishes it from siblings like list_business_rules (which just lists rules in one instance).

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?

Explicitly mentions 'Essential for cutover validation,' giving a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives like simulate_rule_impact or trace_rule_execution for other tasks.

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