check_settings_schema_drift

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

No annotations exist, so the description must stand alone. It explains the comparison and optional diff, but does not disclose output format, side effects (assumed read-only), or any authorization or rate limit implications. The behavioral description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentences with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and optional feature. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the main function and optional parameter. However, without an output schema, additional detail on the result format would enhance completeness.

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?

The only parameter (schemaId) is already well-described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description reiterates the optional diff purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 compares committed settings-schema versions against the live tenant, with an optional structural key-path diff for a specific schemaId. The verb 'compare' and resource 'settings-schema versions' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_settings_schema' (retrieve) and 'validate_settings_object' (validate an object).

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 implies the tool is for drift detection but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_settings_schema' or 'validate_against_live_schema'. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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