create_blueprint_interface

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose operational behavior itself. It explains the conceptual purpose of a Blueprint Interface but gives no detail about side effects, failure modes, validation, overwriting behavior, or what happens during asset creation.

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 description is well-structured with a short opening, a useful conceptual explanation, an Args block, a KB reference, and an example. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each section earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

All parameters are documented, an example call is provided, and a KB link offers deeper context. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. Missing pieces are mainly operational guidance around defaults and alternative asset types, but the description is sufficient for a competent agent to invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly explains all three parameters: interface_name as the asset name, functions with a concrete example of the function-dict structure, and path as the content browser path. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Blueprint Interface asset.' It then explains what interfaces do conceptually, which helps distinguish them from macro/function libraries, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 description gives a clear use case: 'useful for calling functions on actors without knowing their type.' However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like create_blueprint_function_library or create_blueprint_macro_library, so routing between siblings is left mostly to inference.

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