validate_blueprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the check is static only and does not compile, plus a full return shape including a validation_status/validation_message pair. That goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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 purpose and the static-only caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences with no wasted prose. The Returns block is a dense inline literal that is arguably verbose for a structure already implied by the analysis, but it is information-dense rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields the agent needs to interpret results, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-parameter, optional-input validator this is close to sufficient; only the sibling differentiation 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 description coverage is 100% and the description adds nothing about parameters. The alias/resolution behavior (blueprint_name as an alias, ambiguous-name erroring) lives entirely in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 description states a specific verb (validate) and resource (blueprint asset) and pins the exact scope: 'structure, file size, and validity'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from compile_blueprint by declaring it is a static check that 'does NOT compile the Blueprint'. It does not, however, differentiate from close siblings like check_blueprint_errors, audit_blueprint_health, or lint_blueprint_graph.

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 useful context that this is a static asset-registry/on-disk check and not a compilation, which implies when to reach for it. But it never names or excludes the obvious alternative validators in the sibling set (check_blueprint_errors, audit_blueprint_health, lint_blueprint_graph), leaving the agent to infer which validator to pick.

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