Diff library assets

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: offline operation, no TouchDesigner interaction, and detailed output behavior (added/removed keys, old-to-new values, recipe-level diffs of nodes/params/connections). No contradiction; a slight gap is that error handling or file-access prerequisites are not mentioned.

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?

Three efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, the second covers output behavior, and the third gives an alternative tool. Every sentence 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 the annotations (read-only, open-world, non-destructive) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's complete behavior: what it operates on, what it reports, and when to use a sibling. It is a well-rounded, self-contained description for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. It adds a bit of context by listing asset types in the description, but the mode enum descriptions already cover recipe-aware diffing, so it provides little beyond the schema. 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?

Clearly states it performs an offline deep diff of two saved library assets on disk, listing specific asset types (recipe JSONs, component manifests, serialize-network spec JSONs). It distinguishes itself from diff_snapshots for live TD graphs, providing a specific verb+resource and unique scope.

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 names the alternative tool: 'Use diff_snapshots to compare two live TD graphs.' Also states 'Does not touch TouchDesigner,' making the offline/online distinction clear and telling the agent when not to use this tool.

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