audit_breaking_changes

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

Annotations indicate idempotent (idempotentHint=true) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds that it saves a baseline on first run, but does not detail side effects (e.g., file system changes, location of baseline). No permission requirements mentioned. Additional context is minimal beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and specific change types. No unnecessary words; 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?

No output schema and description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of changes, a report, or just success/failure). Also missing details like baseline file naming or location. This is a significant gap for a tool that saves state.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (projectPath, saveBaseline). Description repeats the saveBaseline functionality but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is appropriate since schema carries the burden.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compares current API routes against a saved baseline to detect specific breaking changes (removed endpoints, methods, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling audit tools like audit_migrations or audit_auth_flow by focusing on baseline comparison.

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 usage (first run saves baseline, subsequent runs detect changes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other audit tools. No 'when not to use' or alternatives mentioned.

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