blueprint_parts_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the matching rule (by number, or by name when the source gives none) and that visibility distinguishes parts, but it says nothing about what the check does on mismatch, what "replace" mutates or destroys, permission needs, or the return shape — significant gaps for a tool that appears to write.

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 compact and front-loads the resource, which is good, but the opaque "detail pass" framing and the merged list/check clauses add ambiguity rather than value. Size is fine; clarity per sentence is weak.

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 tool with a mutation flag, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves critical behavior unspecified: the meaning of gun, the effect of replace, and what a successful check returns. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this confidently.

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 33%: entries is documented but gun and replace are bare. The description never explains gun or the mutation semantics of replace, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, and the entries field detail lives in the schema, not the description.

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 phrase "the source's parts list" does identify the resource, but "The detail pass" is unexplained internal jargon and the sentence conflates listing with checking ("the check holds every visible one to a blueprint part"). An agent cannot cleanly tell whether this lists parts, validates them, or both, nor distinguish it from siblings like blueprint_part, blueprint_check, or blueprint_read.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing despite ~50 blueprint_* siblings. The only implicit signal is that it operates on a source's parts list, which is insufficient to choose between this and blueprint_part/blueprint_check.

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