diff_design_nodes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the kinds of information the diff covers, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor does it describe the output shape or any constraints like cross-file support. This is a moderate disclosure—enough to suggest purpose but not complete behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose first and then compresses the key dimensions into a parenthetical list, making it efficient and scannable.

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?

The tool has only three parameters, two required, and no output schema, so the description need not be exhaustive. However, without annotations or an output schema, it would benefit from stating the return type (the diff result) and that no mutation occurs. It is adequate for basic usage but leaves some operational context implicit.

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%, and the schema already documents sourceNodeId as 'Base/reference node ID' and targetNodeId as 'Comparison node ID.' The description adds that these can be nodes or artboards, and that the diff is semantic, but it does not add deeper meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's specific action ('Computes a deep semantic design diff') and its resource ('between two nodes or artboards'). The parenthetical enumerates the kinds of deltas (structural, styling, text, dimension shifts, token bindings), which distinguishes it from a purely visual comparison sibling like compare_visual_regression.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as compare_visual_regression or apply_node_patch. It implies usage for semantic diffing, but it does not state exclusions, alternatives, or the specific conditions under which this tool is preferred.

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