blueprint_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never says whether this mutates the blueprint, persists to disk, requires a prior part, or is reversible. The parenthetical describes feature kinds rather than behavior, so it adds little beyond domain vocabulary.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scoping phrase front-loaded and a parenthetical of concrete examples. It is efficient, though 'the detail pass' is opaque enough that the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 3-parameter, nested-object, mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, one cryptic sentence is insufficient. Nothing tells the agent what the call produces or what state it changes.

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 description coverage is 33%, and the description partially compensates by naming grooves/screws/texture that map to the 'feature' kind field. However, gun and part_id receive no explanation in either the description or the schema, so the coverage gap is only half-closed.

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?

It identifies the resource (a surface feature on a part) and gives domain examples (grooves, screws, patterns), but there is no clear action verb — 'the detail pass' is jargon that leaves ambiguous whether it adds, edits, or renders the feature. Close siblings like blueprint_part, blueprint_hole, and blueprint_mark are not referenced, so an agent cannot confidently separate this from them.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. an existing part_id), and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer that this is the step after blueprint_part from the phrase 'detail pass' alone.

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