cg_blueprint

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that blueprints can be created (action 'create'), or any side effects like file modifications, validation behavior, or destructive potential of removing dependencies. Significantly incomplete for a mutation tool.

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, concise but incomplete. It front-loads the purpose but misses covering the 'create' action and is not well-structured to list operations clearly.

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 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description fails to explain the 'create' operation, validation behavior, or return values. Does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly in a workflow.

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 descriptions cover all 6 parameters fully (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3; description does not elevate it.

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 identifies the tool manages blueprints as higher-order widgets with dependencies. Uses verb 'add or remove' but omits the 'create' action present in schema, creating a slight gap in coverage. Differentiates from sibling tools by specifying blueprint composition but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 provides a high-level use case ('add or remove dependencies') but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cg_create or cg_registry. No context on prerequisites, when not to use, or fallback options.

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