create_blueprint_macro

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by naming the concrete effect: an existing macro of that name is returned with already_existed:true. It also discloses that the created graph is EMPTY and that it is Tunnel-terminated, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing permissions or authoring side effects beyond the graph container.

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 critical constraint (EMPTY, Tunnel-terminated, owned by MacroGraphs) is front-loaded, followed by idempotency, then the fill/instantiate workflow. It is dense but every clause carries information; the return-value sentence is the only part that could arguably be trimmed, and it earns its place given no output schema.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (blueprint_name, macro_name, graph_name, already_existed) and clarifying that graph_name is what to pass downstream. Combined with the construction workflow and idempotency note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and chain the result.

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 the schema already documents macro_name, blueprint_name, and the blueprint_path alias, which is the baseline-3 case. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or constraint detail; its mention of graph_name refers to the return value rather than an input, so it does not enrich input semantics.

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 first sentence states a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Create an EMPTY, Tunnel-terminated macro graph owned by this Blueprint's MacroGraphs.' It immediately distinguishes the artifact from a function by noting macros inline at compile time and can carry multiple exec outputs, so an agent can tell it apart from blueprint-function tools without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear downstream workflow: fill the macro via add_graph_node with graph_name=<macro>, then instantiate with add_macro_instance_node, and even names the alternative (add_graph_node node_type="macro_instance"). What's missing is explicit when-to-use-a-macro-vs-a-function guidance beyond the passing 'not a function' clause, so it's strong context but no definitive exclusion rule.

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