compare_instance_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses what is compared (fields, types, annotations) which is good, but it does not mention authentication requirements or that the operation is read-only. The input schema shows user/password fields, so this context would be valuable.

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 two paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Compare entity metadata between two SF instances'), followed by a concise list of detection types. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main purpose and detection types well but lacks details on how authentication works for the two instances, which is relevant for tool usage.

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 low (43%). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for the required parameters (entity, instance_a_dc, instance_b_dc) and entirely ignores the optional authentication parameters (user/password). It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 entity metadata between two SF instances, listing specific detection types: field existence, type mismatches, and annotation differences. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_business_rules or compare_employees, which focus on other aspects.

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 explicitly mentions 'Essential for cutover validation (DEV → QA → PROD)', providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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