diff_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and an output schema exists, so the description's burden is light. Even so, it adds nothing beyond the structured fields: no indication of the comparison direction (a→b), how large diffs are presented, or error behavior when a snapshot name is unknown.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. The trade-off is telegraphic style — a noun phrase rather than a clause — but nothing in it is wasted.

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 tool this is under-explained: an agent is not told where snapshot names come from (list_snapshots) or how the result relates to check_desired_state. The output schema does cover return values, so that omission is acceptable, but the input-side gaps are not.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain one thing the schema cannot: the literal value "live" as the second side of the diff, which is also the schema default. It never explains what snapshot_a's value should look like (name? ID? from list_snapshots?), leaving the required parameter ambiguous.

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 fragment names the resource (snapshots) and implies a diff/comparison operation, so an agent can roughly infer intent. But there is no verb ("Compute the differences between...") and no differentiation from the sibling check_desired_state, which is the nearest conceptual alternative. Purpose is readable but vague.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of comparing against the live router hints at the common 'what changed since this snapshot' workflow. It gives no when-to-use versus check_desired_state or apply_desired_state, and no prerequisites such as needing an existing snapshot from list_snapshots.

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