implement_interface

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description reinforces this with the concrete consequence (an already-implemented interface returns an error, unlike remove_interface) and discloses the response shape and contract-only effect. It stops short of covering save/compile side effects or undo semantics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 load-bearing fact (non-idempotent, contract-only) is front-loaded and the alternatives follow in logical order. It is dense but every clause earns its place; only the trailing parenthetical about ImplementedInterfaces vs FunctionGraphs is packed slightly tightly.

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 supplies the return contract ({ blueprint_name, interface, implemented }) and confirms success/failure semantics. Combined with the schema's force/PIE warning, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to chain the follow-up tools.

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%, including the aliasing of blueprint_path and the elaborate force/PIE warning, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's parenthetical '(asset path or class name)' merely echoes what interface_path already says, adding no new syntax or constraints.

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 specific verb (Add) and resource (a Blueprint Interface to a Blueprint's implemented list) plus the accepted identifier form. It explicitly separates itself from siblings remove_interface, implement_interface_function and override_interface_member, so an agent can route without opening 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?

It tells the agent exactly what this call does NOT cover ('only registers the contract') and names the two tools that must follow for member graphs and interface EVENTS, plus get_blueprint_functions for verification. That is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance rather than inference.

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