modify_blueprint_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the integration requirement, which is a useful contextual signal. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, whether the change propagates to instances, or potential failure modes, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key prerequisite. It is free of redundancy and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the prerequisite. It does not explain return values or errors, but the core usage is clear and sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what inputs are needed.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (blueprint_path, property_name, new_value) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Change the default value') and the target ('Blueprint variable'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_blueprint_variable' (adds new) and 'get_blueprint_variables' (reads). It also mentions a specific integration requirement, further clarifying its scope.

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 includes a clear prerequisite ('requires Adastrea-Director integration') that tells the agent when the tool is available. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the context implies it is for existing blueprint variables rather than adding or inspecting them.

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