blueprint_add_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool compiles and saves the Blueprint, and that it returns the graph name. This is meaningful side-effect disclosure for a mutation tool, though it does not mention potential failures or overwrite behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, includes the key parameters, mentions side effects, and states the return value. No unnecessary words.

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?

With a rich schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation: creation, compile, save, and return value. It lacks only minor contextual details like whether the Blueprint must already exist or if an existing function with the same name is overwritten, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for blueprint_path, name, inputs, and outputs. The description's mention of 'typed inputs/outputs' aligns with the schema, but it adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Create a user function graph on a Blueprint'), includes key features ('typed inputs/outputs'), and mentions the side effects (compile and save). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blueprint_create, blueprint_compile, or blueprint_add_variable.

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 its use case—adding a function graph to a Blueprint—but does not explicitly list when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites/exclusions. With many blueprint-related siblings, some additional guidance would help.

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