generate_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an auditId immediately and implies asynchronous behavior via polling. However, it does not detail side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, which would be beneficial.

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 long, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 (async with 6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the initiation and follow-up steps but does not explain the return value format beyond 'auditId'. It lacks details on required permissions or what to expect after polling completes.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only mentions 'chosen use case' in passing. No extra context is provided for 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 the verb 'Start blueprint generation' and the resource 'blueprint for a chosen use case'. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings like 'get_generation_status' and 'download_blueprint' by indicating it is the initiation step.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool and provides a clear workflow: start generation, poll with get_generation_status, then call download_blueprint. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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