Save blueprint

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a read-write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds 'local store' and 'unique names' but does not disclose other behavioral traits like permissions or side effects beyond what annotations imply. The description does not contradict 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage. It is well-structured but could be improved by adding parameter details. Nevertheless, it earns its keep without fluff.

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 the tool (3 parameters, one deeply nested object, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits crucial details about the blueprint structure and parameter semantics, leaving the agent underinformed for effective use.

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 description provides no explanation of parameters despite a complex input schema with 3 parameters (name, description, blueprint) and 0% schema description coverage. The only hint is 'Names are unique', which applies to the 'name' parameter, but parameters like 'blueprint' (a nested object) are entirely undocumented.

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 ('save'), the resource ('blueprint'), and the destination ('local store'). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning how to use the saved blueprint with execute_build_plan or diff_blueprint.

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 clear usage context: it explains the purpose of saving for reuse and mentions related tools (execute_build_plan, diff_blueprint). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the mention of alternatives is sufficient.

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