blueprint_views

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 almost nothing. It does not say whether views are persisted, whether omitted optional views cause failure, what 'source' implies about provenance, or what side effects occur. The single clause 'each with its source' is the only operational hint.

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 padding, so it is structurally clean. But conciseness here shades into under-specification -- trimming has removed the verb and any actionable content, so brevity is not an unalloyed virtue.

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 geometry tool with six parameters (four optional/nested-ish), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the action performed, what is produced, how the three views interact, and how the required gun/part_id scope the operation, leaving an agent unable to call it 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 33%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it lends meaning to top, front, top_source, and front_source ('side outline, front sections, a top outline, each with its source'). However, gun and part_id -- both required -- are entirely unaddressed, and 'side outline' does not map to any schema parameter, actively introducing confusion about which fields are expected.

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 conveys the conceptual action -- shaping a part from three orthogonal views (side outline, front sections, top outline) -- but the actual operation (create? add? update?) is never stated, so it reads more like a poetic label than a describable verb+resource. It gestures at distinguishing content from siblings but never names or contrasts them, leaving an agent unsure how it differs from blueprint_part, blueprint_trace, or blueprint_frame.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With a large family of blueprint_* siblings, this is exactly the tool that needs routing guidance, and it supplies none. 'The detail pass' vaguely implies a stage, but no condition selects it.

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