com_compare_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses non-destructive behavior ('Inputs are untouched'), that a new file is created rather than modifying in place, that differences become tracked changes, that a revision summary is generated, and the default output filename. It doesn't state what the function returns or failure conditions, but the presence of an output schema covers return values.

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 dense sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, then output format, then safety and naming. Every sentence earns its place, and the example is woven in without bloating the text.

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?

For a 4-parameter COM operation with an output schema available, the description covers the essential ground: purpose, output format, non-destructiveness, and default naming. Minor gaps remain — the author parameter semantics and explicit differentiation from com_merge_documents/com_combine_documents — but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool safely is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for output_path by stating the default naming convention (<revised>_COMPARE.docx), which implies output_path overrides it, and original/revised_path are implied as the two compared documents. However, the author parameter is never explained — its role in attributing tracked changes is left entirely to the schema's bare default value.

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 names a specific verb ('compare') and resource (two documents) and specifies the exact output: a NEW file with every difference as a tracked change plus a revision summary. This distinguishes it from near-siblings like com_merge_documents and com_combine_documents, which combine rather than diff documents.

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 example use case ('two DTG versions of a draft') provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the output behavior further clarifies intent. It stops short of 5 because it never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it relative to the merge/combine siblings.

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