blueprint_figure_add

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says it cuts a figure and stands it upright, but does not state permissions, reversibility, side effects, error conditions, or return behavior for this mutation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but for a 10-parameter tool it is too terse to be considered appropriately sized. The 'Step 3' preamble consumes space without clarifying the operation for an agent.

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 10 parameters, 5 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, parameter meaning, sequencing details, and return behavior, leaving the agent unable to invoke it correctly from the description alone.

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 only 40%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what little the schema already provides. With 10 parameters (only 5 required) and low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

States a specific action (cuts a figure) and outcome (stands it upright) on a page, and marks it as Step 3 in a pipeline. It is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling blueprint_* tools such as blueprint_views or blueprint_part.

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 'Step 3' prefix implies a sequence but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. No guidance on when this tool should be chosen over blueprint_views, blueprint_page, or blueprint_part is provided.

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