blueprint_build_from_description

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does mention that exec flow is auto-wired, but it omits the important destructive behavior that clear_existing defaults to true, meaning the existing graph is cleared unless explicitly set to false.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the pattern list is compact yet useful. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description gives the core purpose and pattern inventory, making it minimally viable. However, it lacks usage guidance, fails to mention the destructive clear_existing default, and does not explain pattern-specific parameters or how to verify the built graph, leaving clear gaps for an agent.

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 already covers all 3 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by enumerating the allowed pattern names, which are not constrained via enum in the schema, and by clarifying that each step has optional parameters.

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 verb ('Build'), the resource ('Blueprint event graph'), and the method ('from high-level pattern templates'). It lists available patterns and notes auto-wired exec flow, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like blueprint_build_from_json.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blueprint_build_from_json or blueprint_create. The pattern list implies usage scenarios, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or 'use when' instructions.

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