manage_blueprint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a generic action list. It does not disclose potential destructive side effects (e.g., node deletion, component removal) or any operational caveats, providing minimal value over annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, for a tool of this complexity (68 params, 36 actions), it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, leaving out critical scope information.

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 the tool's vast action set and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers only creation, component addition, and node manipulation, omitting get/compile/variable/event operations and any behavioral prerequisites. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only 46%, and the description provides no parameter-level details. With 68 parameters and many undocumented fields, the description should clarify parameter usage but instead only mentions high-level component types (mesh, collision, camera), which does not map meaningfully to 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's primary actions: creating Blueprints, adding SCS components (mesh, collision, camera), and manipulating graph nodes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_asset, though it omits several major action categories (compile, variables, events) and doesn't explicitly separate from manage_asset for blueprint assets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply lists a few actions without context for selection among the many sibling tools.

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