Compare two drives

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Diff' and 'explain' imply a read-only comparison and hint at output (per-parameter explanations), which is useful, but it does not state permissions, whether any state changes occur, or how results are structured.

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 tight sentences: the operation is front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description conveys both operation and likely return content ('explain each differing parameter'). A note on output structure or read-only nature would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so axis_a and axis_b are already documented in the schema, including the allowed axis naming (X, Y1, Y2, Z, A, B). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (diff parameter sets, explain each differing parameter) against a specific resource (two axis drives). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_drive_parameters (single drive) and explain_drive_parameter (single parameter).

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios: cloning a drive, replacing a SERVOSTAR, diagnosing behavioral differences between axes. It does not name the sibling tools it beats out (get_drive_parameters, explain_drive_parameter), so the routing context is implied rather than explicit.

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