omni_blueprint

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key behaviors: producing a full op list and only applying changes when apply=true, which implies the default is non-destructive. It does not mention error handling or size limits, but it covers the core execution model and output purpose.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences: purpose first, then output behavior and the apply flag. Every clause contributes useful selection and invocation information, with no filler.

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?

The description explains the overall flow and return purpose, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, the steps union is large and the description does not ties step construction to the omni_shape_* tools, does not mention validation behavior, and leaves batchName entirely unexplained. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient for a complex input schema.

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 33%, so the description needed to compensate for the unocumented steps and batchName parameters. It only vaguely says 'list of named operations' and never explains the step object structure, supported kinds, or the batchName default. Worse, 'named operations' could mislead an agent into adding a 'name' field, since the schema's step items have no such property.

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 uses an active verb and a clear resource ('Run any sequence of high-level shape calls') and distinguishes itself from the single-shape omni_shape_* tools by emphasizing a single round-trip and a batch-consumable op list. Mention of feeding into omni_batch_apply makes the orchestration role explicit.

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool: when multiple shape calls should be composed in one round-trip rather than issued separately, with an explicit path to omni_batch_apply or auto-applying. It does not spell out when-not-to-use cases, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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