blueprint_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this creates persistent state, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the blueprint already exists, what permissions are needed, or what the result is.

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 filler, so it is structurally tight. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economical expression, leaving almost nothing actionable for the 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 three parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. There is no information about inputs, side effects, or return values to guide a correct invocation.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It references 'gun' and loosely 'action family' (matching the required 'gun' and 'action'), but adds no format, expected values, or constraints, and never mentions the optional 'title' parameter.

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 says it 'starts the gun's blueprint for its action family,' which gestures at creating/initializing a blueprint, but the verb 'starts' is weak and the domain jargon ('gun', 'action family') is never defined. It gives no basis for distinguishing it from siblings like blueprint_build, blueprint_read, or blueprint_to_gunkit.

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 4' prefix implies this sits in a workflow sequence, which is a faint hint about when to call it, but no prerequisites, ordering rules, or alternatives are stated. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would pick blueprint_new over other blueprint_* tools.

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