blueprint_apply

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: omitted objects are not deleted, there is no atomic rollback, templates are cloned into standalone objects, and stable id/key mappings persist locally across applies. These are precisely the mutation risks an agent needs to weigh before calling a destructive write 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?

Roughly six short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact, with the core action and the dry-run safety step front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 a deeply nested schema and a destructive write, the description covers the important caveats (no rollback, no deletion of omitted objects, idempotent-style reapply behavior). The remaining gap is return behavior: with no output schema, the agent gets no hint about what a dry-run report 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?

Only 3 params and 33% schema coverage, so the description has to compensate — and it largely does: it explains dry_run's role, the meaning of persistent ids/keys, and that templates are cloned (clarifying the '$key' vs library-id template field). It still doesn't explain how objects are matched on reapply or what 'poses' map to (position/rotation), so it stops short of full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Build/update a complete table from a validated blueprint') and enumerates exactly what the blueprint contains (plan, templates, tracked objects, poses, properties, scripts). The 'complete table' scope implicitly separates it from single-object siblings like objects_spawn and objects_patch.

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?

Gives an explicit operating sequence: 'Dry run first; set dry_run=false to apply,' which tells the agent the safe default and how to commit. It does not, however, name an alternative tool (e.g. table_plan_apply or objects_spawn) or state when not to use this tool.

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