blueprint_calibrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never discloses whether calibration mutates or persists state on the figure, what happens if the two points disagree with the fact, whether the operation is reversible, or what the caller receives. For a tool that presumably writes a scale onto a figure, this is a substantial disclosure 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 a single compact sentence with no filler, but it is dense jargon and poorly front-loaded — it opens with the abstract concept "A figure's scale" and buries the operative mechanism in parentheticals. Compact enough, but hard to parse on first read and not structured around the action.

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?

Seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations means the description needs to do a lot of work. It explains the input model for the primary path but omits what the tool produces or changes after calibration, the roles of gun/figure_id/cm, and any error cases. Inadequate for the complexity of the tool.

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 57% (a, b, fact, extent_of are described; cm, gun, figure_id are not), so the description must add meaning. It does explain the model: a and b are two points a known length apart, fact supplies that known length, and extent_of is a kept outline whose bore length substitutes for a and b. However, it leaves cm, gun, and figure_id entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 frames the tool as establishing "a figure's scale," which is a recognizable purpose, but it is written as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement and never says explicitly that it calibrates/sets the scale of a blueprint figure. It gestures at the mechanism (two points, or a kept outline) rather than stating the action. An agent can guess the intent but cannot cleanly distinguish it from siblings like blueprint_measure or blueprint_fact_add.

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 (e.g., that a figure must already exist), and no routing to alternatives such as blueprint_measure or blueprint_grid. The only alternatives mentioned (fact vs. a/b, extent_of in place of a and b) are input-mode choices, not tool-selection guidance. The agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right choice.

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