Apply blueprint

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations. It discloses that 'Nothing is ever deleted; live entities missing from the blueprint are reported as orphans,' explains the ordered application, states that dry_run prevents any write, and notes idempotency ('Applying the same blueprint twice yields zero operations the second time'). This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place. The most important information (diff and apply) is front-loaded, followed by safety guarantees, mode explanations, and idempotency. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 the tool's complexity (nested blueprint, 4 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers behavior, modes, safety, dry_run, and idempotency. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return value for non-dry-run executions, though dry_run's return is mentioned. This minor omission prevents a 5.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining mode and dry_run semantics in detail ('mode=create_only (default)', 'dry_run=true the full ordered plan is returned'). It implies the blueprint structure via the ordered application list. While it doesn't detail the blueprint's required fields, the schema itself contains extensive nested documentation, so this is a strong partial compensation.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Diff a declarative blueprint against a guild's live roles and channels, then apply the difference.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from the granular sibling tools (create_role, create_channel, etc.) by describing a bulk, ordered application process covering roles, categories, channels, and permission overwrites.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool and its modes: 'mode=create_only (default) only creates missing entities; mode=reconcile also updates entities that differ.' It also mentions dry_run for planning. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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