Execute build plan

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

Annotations already indicate mutation and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable context: re-validation against live server, strict additive execution, dependency order, failure handling, and resume capability. No contradictions.

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 concise paragraph with front-loaded core purpose, followed by essential behavioral details. No unnecessary words, each sentence adds value.

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 complexity of nested blueprint objects, the description sufficiently explains the execution process and output (report of created/failed/unattempted). It could specify the exact response format, but the high-level behavior is well covered.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds context about the two mutually exclusive options (plan_id vs blueprint) and the re-validation behavior, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 executes a staged plan or blueprint, outlining the build process (dependency order, additive nature). It distinguishes from sibling tools like plan_server_build (staging) and delete_blueprint (removal).

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool (with a plan_id or blueprint) and how it behaves (re-validation, additive, failure handling). It implies alternatives (plan_server_build for staging) but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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