save_as_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden and clearly discloses the behavioral scope: what is captured and what is excluded. This adds meaningful context beyond the tool's name.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., blueprint ID) or mention prerequisites (e.g., plan existence). It covers inputs and exclusions reasonably but lacks output details.

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 20% (only title has a description in schema). The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters (plan_id, title, description, visibility, tags), so the agent must rely solely on schema names.

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 tool's purpose: snapshotting a live plan into a new plan-scope blueprint. It specifies what is captured (structure, agent_instructions, dependencies) and what is excluded (run-state), distinguishing it from siblings like fork_blueprint.

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 use on live plans and lists captured/excluded elements, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fork_blueprint) or when not to use it.

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