blueprint_part

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 does disclose one genuinely useful trait: every number requires a source and blueprint_check will fail a part lacking one, which explains the coupling to the *source params. It says nothing about overwrite/idempotency semantics for a repeated part_id, required permissions, or what the call returns.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the validation consequence second; no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 19-parameter tool, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structural one.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema and under half schema description coverage, two sentences are not enough. The description never defines what a 'part' is, how parts relate via parent/part_id, or what happens on re-set, leaving the agent to infer most of the calling contract from the schema 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 coverage is only 47%, so the description should compensate. It adds one meaningful cross-parameter rule ('every number needs its source'), which explains why x_source, axis_source, motion_sources and profile_source exist, but it leaves the remaining undocumented parameters (gun, finish, bore_r, bevel_cm, parent, axis, name, part_id) unexplained.

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 verb and resource: 'Sets one part of the blueprint.' An agent can tell it is the per-part write/upsert operation, distinct from reads like blueprint_parts_list or validators like blueprint_check. It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling explicitly.

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 routing to alternatives such as blueprint_parts_list (read) or blueprint_check (validate). The only context offered is a validation rule about sources, which is a constraint rather than usage guidance.

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