blueprint_apply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Apply', implying mutation, but does not describe what happens to existing content (overwrite? merge?), whether the operation is transactional, or what side effects occur. Critical for a tool with a complex blueprint input.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified. Important information (parameters, return value, prerequisites) is missing. Conciseness is only valuable when the essentials are covered; here it sacrifices usefulness for brevity.

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 (3 parameters, deeply nested blueprint schema, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'high-level dashboard blueprint' entails, how 'dryRun' affects execution, or what the output (if any) looks like. The agent lacks context to invoke it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the JSON schema properties have no descriptions. The tool description does not mention any of the three parameters (projectPath, blueprint, dryRun) or their roles. For a complex nested blueprint object, this forces the agent to infer meaning from property names alone, which is insufficient.

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 action ('Apply') and the resource ('high-level dashboard blueprint to an existing PBIP project'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'blueprint_preview' or 'blueprint_validate', which also involve blueprint operations. A more precise verb like 'merge' or 'overwrite' would clarify the behavior.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), or that a dry run should be performed first via 'blueprint_preview' or 'blueprint_validate'. The description lacks conditional advice.

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