blueprints_substitute_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the main behavior (render and return dict) but omits details like whether it's read-only, error handling, or permissions, which are important for a tool with side-effect potential.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient, containing no superfluous words while communicating the core action.

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?

Despite having 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description fails to clarify what the path refers to, what the input object should contain, or the possible values for domain. It is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%; the description only mentions 'given inputs' without explaining the path, input object structure, or domain parameter. It adds minimal value beyond parameter names in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool renders a blueprint with inputs and returns YAML as a dict, specifying the action and output format, distinguishing it from listing or importing blueprints.

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 implies the tool is for generating automation/script YAML from a blueprint, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like blueprints_list_blueprints or blueprints_import_blueprint.

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