Export server blueprint

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool may have side effects but is not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains the permission decompilation logic (private_to and read_only with warnings) and the optional save_as behavior that writes to the store. It does not contradict annotations and provides nuance beyond the basic safety profile.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and then provides necessary details. It avoids unnecessary fluff and every clause adds meaningful information about the tool's behavior and optional parameters. While it could be split into two sentences for readability, it remains concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (permission decompilation, optional save) and lack of an output schema, the description provides a solid overview. It mentions key aspects like the transformation of permission overwrites and the optional storage behavior, but it does not explicitly describe the return value or handling of existing blueprints with the same name. However, these gaps are partially mitigated by the detailed parameter schema and the clear snapshot intent.

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 100%, so both parameters (guild and save_as) are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only mentioning that save_as writes 'straight to the store,' which is slightly more descriptive than the schema's 'Save the export under this blueprint name.' Since the schema carries the load, a 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 tool's purpose: 'Snapshot a live server's structure into a blueprint' and lists the included components (roles, categories, channels, visibility) and the permission decompilation behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_blueprint (which saves an existing blueprint) and diff_blueprint (which compares blueprints). The verb 'snapshot' and resource 'live server' make it specific and actionable.

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 capturing a live server's structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. While the sibling context suggests it is distinct from create_server_template and save_blueprint, the description itself offers no direct guidance on selection criteria. This is an implied usage case, not explicit guidance.

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