add_function_output

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states a mutation action ('add') but lacks details on side effects, requirements, or constraints (e.g., duplicate names, type restrictions).

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?

Single sentence is concise but overly brief, sacrificing completeness. It is front-loaded with purpose but lacks structure for parameter or behavior details.

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?

With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, 5 parameters, and an output schema, the description fails to provide essential context. It does not address prerequisites, parameter behavior, or what the output schema contains.

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 0%, yet the tool has 5 parameters. The description provides no explanation of any parameter's meaning or usage, forcing agents to guess from names alone.

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?

'Add an output parameter to a Blueprint function' clearly specifies the action (add), resource (output parameter), and context (Blueprint function). It distinguishes from siblings like add_function_input or set_material_function_output.

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 usage in Blueprint function editing but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though the context is clear.

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