blueprint_numbers

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. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, reversibility, return behavior, or whether the operation is a read or a write, despite the required 'numbers' input strongly implying a 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?

The single sentence is short but grammatically awkward and fails to front-load a clear action or outcome. Its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication, leaving the agent without the core information needed to invoke the tool.

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?

Given three required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete. An agent lacks the purpose, usage context, parameter meaning, and behavioral profile required to call this tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It loosely relates 'numbers' to source part numbers and 'part_id' to a blueprint part, but leaves 'gun' completely unexplained and provides no format, type, or role information for any 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 is a noun phrase that gestures at a relationship ('source's part numbers a blueprint part stands for') but never states an action verb such as get, set, or assign. It does not distinguish the tool from the many blueprint_* siblings, and an agent cannot tell whether it reads or writes data.

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 alternatives among the numerous blueprint_* or rig_* sibling tools. The description offers no context for selecting this tool over blueprint_part, blueprint_parts_list, or similar operations.

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