diff_minutes_against_saved

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: it warns that a second save overwrites existing minutes and frames the tool as a way to prevent data loss. It also previews the return type (DiffResponse with write_mode values), which is useful. This enriches the annotation profile without contradicting it.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief explanation of why it exists, and a clear Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important detail (the overwrite warning) is front-loaded. No fluff or 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?

For a read-only diff tool, the description fully covers what it does, why it is used, and what it returns (DiffResponse with write_mode). An output schema exists, so return details are already specified. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema information, adding only minimal context (e.g., diff_preview_lines defaults to 40, minutes_markdown is the full draft). Since the schema already carries the meaning, the description does not add significant new value, warranting a baseline 3.

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 states a specific action: shows the difference between saved minutes and the draft. It clearly identifies the resource (meeting minutes) and the operation (diff comparison). The added context about preventing overwrite accidents further clarifies its purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like preview_save_minutes.

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 explicitly explains when this tool is useful: before a second save with the same note_id overwrites the existing file. It positions the tool as a safety check, giving clear contextual usage. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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