Update Blueprint Groups

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of transparency. It discloses side effects (writes .blueprint/blueprint-output.json, creates group markdown templates) and validation rules. It could mention error handling or rollback behavior, but overall it's strong.

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 comprehensive but slightly verbose. Key information is front-loaded (purpose and usage rules), but the validation rules paragraph could be more concise. Overall, it earns its length.

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 (2 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers validation rules, side effects, and usage boundaries. It lacks details on error responses or idempotency, but suffices for an experienced agent.

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?

The input schema has 50% description coverage (only top-level fields have descriptions). The description adds crucial semantics for nested fields: constraints like 'fileId must refer to unassigned', 'groupId must be existing', 'newGroups id must not exist'. This meaningfully supplements the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: applying LLM group decisions after a Blueprint refresh. It specifies the allowed actions (assigning unassigned files, creating groups, deleting empty groups) and distinguishes from sibling tools like blueprint.group and blueprint.refresh.

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 lists when to use the tool ('only for assigning unassigned files...') and when not to ('Do not use for updated files...'), including alternatives like 'deleted file cleanup' and 'editing markdown memory'. This provides clear guidance.

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