Review Project Delta

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

Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: 'This read does not create a package or advance a cursor,' 'Effect: read,' error handling steps. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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 well-structured with clear sections (use when, do not use, requires, effect, then, on failure). It is comprehensive but slightly verbose; a bit more brevity could improve it.

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 complexity (3 params, output schema present, annotations present), the description is thorough. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, error handling, and post-call actions ('follow typed result state; review pending proposals/drafts'). No gaps.

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 only 33% with no descriptions for fromVersion and toVersion. The description mentions 'by contextVersion' but does not explain the parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents uncertain about parameter usage.

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's action: 'Preview ordered ProjectChangeSets by contextVersion.' It specifies the resource (ProjectChangeSets) and distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not create a package or advance a cursor, and suggests not using when a narrower tool matches.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Preview ordered ProjectChangeSets by contextVersion') and when-not-to-use ('a narrower tool better matches the intent, the project scope is unresolved, or the user has declined the action'). Also lists prerequisites: authenticated API authority and API-authorized selected project.

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