Diff two immutable Content Revisions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying that the comparison covers complete revision fields and asset inventories, reinforcing the non-mutating scope beyond what annotations alone convey.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and clearly states the non-destructive behavior. Every word adds value, with no redundant or vague filler.

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?

Given the simple three-parameter interface and strong annotations, the description is largely complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It could be slightly more complete by noting the shape of the comparison result or explicitly contrasting with template_history, but the core use case is sufficiently covered.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-specific meaning. The parameter names templateId, fromRevisionId, and toRevisionId are fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions or clarify expected formats or relationships between parameters.

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 a specific operation: compare complete revision fields and asset inventories between two revisions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly calling out that it does not modify either revision, making its read-only comparison role unambiguous.

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 clear context that this tool is for read-only comparison of revisions, which helps an agent select it over planning/apply or preview tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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