create_blueprint_folder

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only covers scope. It says nothing about whether intermediate folders are auto-created for a deep path, what happens if the folder already exists, permission requirements, or reversal (undo_action exists as a sibling). Those are the questions an agent needs answered before invoking a mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope boundary. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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?

Two-sentence description for a two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The core intent is covered, but idempotency, error behavior, and the project parameter are all left unexplained, which is meaningful for a write tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: the example "characters/bosses/infernal" conveys that path is a slash-delimited nested path. But the second parameter, project (defaulting to "default"), is never mentioned, and it stays ambiguous whether path is absolute or relative to the category.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a nested blueprint folder") and immediately bounds it against related asset operations with "Does not create or delete blueprints." That negative clause also separates it from the sibling delete_blueprint, though no other sibling is named.

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 "under a category" framing plus the explicit "does not create or delete blueprints" gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context. It stops short of pointing at the correct alternative (e.g., delete_blueprint for removal), so it is not a 5.

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