deploy_release_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (diff buckets and migrations.applied_between_releases) and error preservation. It does not mention any destructive side effects, which aligns with a read operation, but could briefly state it is read-only.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second details parameters and return/error behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (diff buckets and migrations). Parameters are covered in schema and description. It could specify the structure of diff buckets for completeness, but it is sufficient for an agent.

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 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds context about valid literal values for `from` and `to` and mentions the `limit` parameter's default and purpose. However, this adds marginal value over the schema, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool diffs two release targets for a project, using specific verbs and resource names. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy_release_active by focusing on diffing, not activating or getting individual releases.

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 explains valid values for `from` and `to` parameters (empty, active, or release id) and mentions that semantic errors are preserved (invalid targets, same-release diffs, no active release). This helps the agent decide when to use it, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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