style_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recording slot mechanism and that compare only reports changed properties. However, it does not mention edge cases (e.g., missing prior record, element not found) or any destructive effects.

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 (3-4 sentences) with no filler words. It front-loads the purpose and quickly explains the usage pattern in a structured way.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining the core workflow and use case. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling or slot behavior, but it is sufficient for most scenarios.

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%, but the description adds additional meaning by explaining the workflow and the purpose of the slot parameter ('named slot'). It also implies how uid and selector are used in the context of recording and comparing.

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 performs a BEFORE/AFTER comparison for one element, recording styles into a named slot and comparing to show only changed properties. It uses specific verbs ('record', 'compare') and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_alignment or explain_styles.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it ('did my fix actually change anything?') and provides a concrete usage loop (record → apply change → compare). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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