blueprint_align

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about side effects, whether the figure is mutated, what coordinate/unit assumptions exist, or what the result is. A mutation-capable alignment operation with zero behavioral context is a serious gap.

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?

It is short, but short because it is under-specified rather than economical. The single fragment is not front-loaded with an action or outcome, so no sentence earns its place by conveying usable information.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters (5 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 43% schema description coverage, the description provides almost none of the missing context. An agent has no basis 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?

Schema coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters such as gun, figure_id, reference_figure, and note. Instead it adds no meaning for any parameter and only obliquely evokes 'part' and 'trace' via the trigger-guard phrasing.

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 is a noun phrase fragment ('A figure's scale and frame matched to a framed figure...') with no verb and no explicit statement of what the tool does to its inputs. It gestures at aligning a figure to a reference figure, but an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings like blueprint_calibrate, blueprint_frame, or rig_align.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The fragment hints at a comparison operation but never states the condition under which this tool should be chosen.

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