update_blueprint

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

Without annotations, description discloses key behaviors: shallow merge, version snapshot creation, and staleness propagation. However, lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or return value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with primary action, includes key details without redundancy. 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?

Covers purpose, merge behavior, side effects, and usage context. Lacks output specification (no output schema) and error handling, but acceptable given complexity.

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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds meaning by explaining sections are 'full top-level sections' and 'shallow-merged', providing operational context beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it updates blueprint sections with implementation data and distinguishes from siblings like update_business_case by specifying 'blueprint sections'. The phrase 'Use this when the implementation diverges from the original recommendation' adds specific context.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('when the implementation diverges from the original recommendation') and implies side effects (propagates staleness to business case and implementation plan), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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