postfader_review_compare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds a meaningful behavioral note—that invoking this comparison does not signal producer approval—which is not captured by the annotations and is valuable for correct usage.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action and immediately states the key constraint. No unnecessary words; efficient and front-loaded.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema, and a self-explanatory nested schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. The only minor gap is not explicitly routing away from sibling tools, but the name and the approval nuance provide enough context.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the 'request' parameter with its description 'Distinct aligned before/after assets and their revision objective,' and the nested properties are self-explanatory. The description reinforces the alignment and distinctness of assets, adding slight nuance beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Compare') and resource ('before and after bounces') and adds a distinctive behavioral nuance ('without implying producer approval'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like postfader_review_evaluate or audio_compare_files, which have different scopes.

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 provides a clear functional constraint: this tool is for comparison and must not be used to imply approval. This is a form of when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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