Delete an installed blueprint

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the underlying `blueprint/delete` WebSocket command, that the file under /config/blueprints/<domain>/ is removed with content lost and no backup, that there is no confirm guard, and that it blocks on a ~10s round trip. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking an irreversible delete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then clearly partitioned into Not-for / Returns / Limits blocks, so no sentence is wasted. It is on the verbose side for a two-parameter delete, but the structure makes the length scannable 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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description notes the return is typically an empty success payload, and it covers destructive semantics, timing limits, and the absence of a confirm parameter. For a destructive two-param tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by framing `path` as relative to /config/blueprints/<domain>/ and tying `domain` to the file location, reinforcing the relationship between the two parameters beyond their individual schema 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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('an installed blueprint') plus the locating key ('by its relative path'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling blueprints tools (import/save/substitute) and from the automations_delete_* tools it explicitly routes to.

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?

Explicitly names the negative case ('Not for: automations or scripts generated from this blueprint') and the exact alternatives to use instead (`automations_delete_automation`, `automations_delete_script`), including the reason (they keep running with substituted config). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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