Create Blueprint

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the asynchronous nature of blueprint generation, the default synchronous waiting behavior, the option for manual polling, and authentication requirements. Annotations only indicate it's not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive, so the description provides crucial operational details.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details, then practical examples. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (asynchronous creation with configurable waiting), lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, authentication, usage patterns, and examples, providing all necessary context for an agent 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value through concrete usage examples that illustrate how parameters like projectType, scale, and priorities combine in real scenarios (e.g., 'SaaS MVP' or 'enterprise API'), providing semantic context beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 specific action ('Creates a new tech stack blueprint') and resource ('for a project'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_blueprint (read) or analyze_tech (analysis). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (creating blueprints) and mentions prerequisites (API key with 'blueprint:write' scope). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like recommend_stack or compare_techs, which prevents a perfect score.

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