diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses that the tool returns change details, problems, and an apply_token, which is useful, but it never explicitly states that it is non-mutating or what permissions/draft state are required.

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 compact sentence listing the three outputs, front-loaded and with no filler. It is terse but every clause contributes.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and return content sufficiently. It could say more about the required draft state and its relationship to the apply sibling, but the structured fields cover much of the rest.

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?

Zero parameters; the description mentions apply_token as an output, not an input. With no input schema properties, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 names the core output—changes from applying the draft, problems, and apply_token—so the tool's function as a diff/preview is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with render_preview or apply, so it stops shy of full sibling differentiation.

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 mention of 'what applying the draft would change' and the apply_token implies a preview-before-apply workflow, but the description never states when to call this versus render_preview or apply, nor any prerequisites.

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