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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: whole-flow blueprints return the screen manifest without file bytes by default, instantiation copies server-side, includeFiles is audit-only, and `tables` lists bound custom tables. This is unusually rich.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the mode ('INSPECTION ONLY') leads, followed by purpose, routing, anti-pattern, and the includeFiles caveat. Every sentence earns its place and no clause is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the return shape (tables list, manifest-without-bytes default, file bytes only under includeFiles). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the params — and it does for includeFiles ('pass true only to audit the source') and gives provenance for id ('from list_blueprints'), plus documents the returned `tables` field. The only gap is that id's expected format is not specified.

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 and resource — read a blueprint's overlay code by id — and explicitly distinguishes itself from the write/apply path. The opening 'INSPECTION ONLY' immediately frames it against flow_apply_blueprint_widgets and flow_create_flow_from_blueprint.

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 explicit when-to-use (understand how a blueprint works), when-not-to-use (to actually use it, apply instead), names the two alternative tools by name, and adds a strong anti-pattern warning against re-typing code into write_flow_files with the reason why.

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