blueprint_add_event_dispatcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions that the tool compiles and saves the Blueprint, which is a notable side effect. However, it does not describe what happens on name collisions, whether the Blueprint must be loaded, or any permission requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create an event dispatcher') and compactly conveys the optional signature and compile/save steps. There is no wasted content, and it is easy to scan.

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 lack of an output schema and the moderate complexity of the nested signature object, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the primary action, the optional signature, and the follow-up compile/save. It doesn't describe return values or error cases, but for a create operation the core behavior is covered sufficiently. A small gap remains around expected outcomes.

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 each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description mentions 'optional parameter signature' which aligns with the 'signature' parameter, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Hence a baseline score 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 a specific verb ('Create') with a specific resource ('event dispatcher (multicast delegate)') and includes the key behavior of compiling and saving. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'blueprint_remove_event_dispatcher' by focusing on creation.

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 context is clear: this tool is for creating a new event dispatcher in a Blueprint. It doesn't explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternatives, but the action is unambiguous and well-scoped. No exclusions are stated, but the purpose itself provides sufficient usage context.

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