Refresh Blueprint Deterministically

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It describes side effects: writing blueprint files and scan state, and returning a maintenance prompt. It mentions comparison but does not explicitly state idempotence or whether it overwrites existing files, though 'refresh' implies that. Overall, it is transparent enough.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the core action. It is efficient but slightly dense; no unnecessary words. Could benefit from clearer structure (e.g., bullet points) but still scores high on conciseness.

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 with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, process, return value (maintenance prompt), and follow-up guidance. It lacks error or prerequisite info but is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter details beyond the schema but provides process context (e.g., 'compares .blueprint/refresh-scan.json with a fresh full scan'). This is adequate but not extra value.

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: 'Deterministically refresh .blueprint/blueprint-output.json from the current filesystem snapshot.' It explains the process (comparison and writing) and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying a follow-up tool and what it does not do (no raw git diffs).

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 advises when to use blueprint.group.update afterwards and for what conditions ('only for unassigned files or empty group decisions'). It implies usage context by stating the tool is deterministic and does not send raw diffs, but it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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