blueprint_add_interface

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool mutates the blueprint and performs compile and save operations. However, it does not clarify behavior if the interface already exists, whether it is additive, or error conditions, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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 succinct sentence that front-loads the primary verb and object, and includes the important side effects (compile and save) without any filler.

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?

For a simple tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core action and immediate side effects. However, it omits details about prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist) and return behavior, but the absence of output schema and annotations is partially compensated by the schema descriptions.

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 covers all parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'on a Blueprint,' so it does not improve on what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Implement a Blueprint Interface on a Blueprint') and notes it compiles and saves, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like blueprint_add_variable, blueprint_add_function, and blueprint_remove_interface.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., blueprint_remove_interface) and no prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without context on selection criteria.

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