create_blueprint_macro_library

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the class restriction and parent_class requirement, and 'Actor works for most cases' is useful practical guidance. However, it does not state side effects such as asset creation and saving, overwrite behavior, permissions needed, or what the function returns, which is a notable gap for a create-type tool.

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-organized with a clear opening statement, a brief conceptual paragraph, structured Args, KB reference, and an example. It is longer than necessary but each section has a distinct purpose. The example is particularly efficient for clarifying usage.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the parameters have defaults, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly: what it does, parameter meanings, class restrictions, and a usage example. The KB link offers deeper reference material. It could mention error conditions or what the blueprint asset should be named to fit project conventions, but this is not critical.

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 0%, and the description compensates with an Args section covering all three parameters. It gives a naming example, explains parent_class as a restriction with a sensible default, and describes folder_path's purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare string schema. More detail on accepted folder_path formats or potential validation constraints could make it perfect.

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 'Create a Blueprint Macro Library for shared macros across Blueprints,' which is a specific verb + resource. It also contrasts with Function Libraries, making the tool's specialized purpose unambiguous even without inspecting 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 description provides clear context by noting that 'Unlike Function Libraries, Macro Libraries require a parent class and can only be used in subclasses of that parent.' This helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate relative to create_blueprint_function_library. It stops short of explicitly stating 'use this when...' or 'do not use when...' but the contrast is strong.

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