get_blueprint_component_overrides

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantial context beyond that: the SCS -> ICH -> ancestor SCS -> CDO cascade, that it never mints an ICH override, the staleness warning with a concrete remedy, and what verify_on_disk returns for non-string values (found:null / applicable:false rather than a misleading false).

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 and front-loaded: the core purpose arrives in the first clause before the implementation detail. Every sentence carries information, though the engine-internal asides (FProperty::Identical, PPF_DeepComparison) border on more detail than selection requires; it is long but not padded.

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 12-param read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the return object shape (components, properties, counts, on_disk, templates_may_be_stale, success) and the classification kinds. Nothing needed to call or interpret it appears 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: the semantics of baseline_mode (archetype by default vs same-named template in other_blueprint), the purpose of verify_on_disk, and the classification taxonomy that interprets the output. It stops short of describing each of the 12 params individually, which the schema already handles.

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 precise verb and resource: per-property PROVENANCE on a Blueprint's component templates, resolving which values were actually OVERRODE versus inherited. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_blueprint_scs_tree ('Over the same components as...') and list_instance_overrides ('asks the same question about a PLACED ACTOR'), so an agent can separate it from siblings without reading schemas.

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 clear conditions: use other_blueprint for the 'fork vs original' question and verify_on_disk when memory may be stale. It names two sibling alternatives and scopes them, but it doesn't fully enumerate when NOT to reach for this versus get_blueprint_scs_tree/diff_blueprint_components for general audits.

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