split_blueprint_pin

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-readonly, so mutation is understood; the description goes further by disclosing the resulting state change (sub-pins become the wireable targets) and the cross-tool interaction where set_pin_default_value refuses a split pin. It does not restate the PIE-run restriction, which only appears in the force parameter's schema text, so it is one step short of fully complete.

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?

Three tight sentences plus a compact Returns block; the core action and scope are front-loaded and each sentence contributes either scope, refusal behavior, or workflow routing. No 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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return shape ({ split, sub_pins:[string] }) along with the semantic meaning of sub_pins and where to pass them. Combined with the refusal rules and the recombine interaction, an agent has everything needed to call and chain this tool correctly.

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 node_id, pin_name, graph/blueprint addressing, and the force/PIE caveat are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntactic or format detail about the inputs themselves; the sub_pin naming example ('NewLocation_X') concerns outputs, not parameters, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 ('Split a struct-typed pin ... into its scalar sub-pins') with concrete examples (Vector, Rotator, Transform), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling recombine_blueprint_pin. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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?

The motivating use case is explicit ('so each component can be wired or defaulted on its own instead of writing the whole struct literal'), the refusal condition is named ('Refused when the schema says the pin is not splittable'), and the alternative is spelled out with the selecting condition (recombine_blueprint_pin first if you want to write the struct as one value).

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