draft_diff

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

Annotations indicate 'readOnlyHint: true', and the description adds that it returns a JSON string with changed fields and a merge recommendation. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotation, although it does not disclose any additional constraints (e.g., whether the draft must be active).

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 brief, front-loads the main action, and separates Args and Returns in a structured format. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

With an existing output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. The tool is not complex, and the description, combined with structured metadata, provides complete contextual information for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description explains 'draft_id' as returned by 'draft_memory' and 'compare_to' as an optional existing memory UUID. This adds essential meaning not present in the schema, though it could specify how 'compare_to' affects the diff (e.g., comparing to a specific version).

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 'Show a field-level diff for a memory draft,' with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'draft_memory' (which creates drafts) and 'merge_draft' (which merges), but does not explicitly contrast them, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'merge_draft' or 'reject_draft'. It neither states conditions for use nor precludes other tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and description alone.

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