blueprint_pins_break

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive action (breaking links) and the side effects (compiling and saving the blueprint), which goes beyond merely inferring from the tool name. However, it does not cover reversibility, error handling, or effects on dependent nodes.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key side effects. It is efficient and free of unnecessary words, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not document 3 of 4 parameters, does not mention prerequisites (e.g., graph loaded), and does not describe success/failure behavior or return values. This makes the description insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only blueprint_path is described), and the tool description does not explain the other three parameters (pin_name, node_guid, graph_name). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving a significant gap for three required 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 a specific action ('Break all links on a single pin of a node') and the additional behavior ('compile and save'). This distinguishes it from siblings like blueprint_pins_connect, which connects pins instead of breaking them.

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 the tool is used for disconnecting pins, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as blueprint_pins_connect, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear from the name and description but not explicitly articulated.

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