update_blueprint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful clarification that the entire payload is overwritten (no merge semantics), but says nothing about what happens to omitted fields, permissions, or failure modes beyond what annotations provide.

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 lines of prose plus a two-entry Args block, with the mutating operation front-loaded. No filler; every element maps directly to a required parameter or the core semantics.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need not be described) and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It conveys full-replacement semantics and parameter meaning; only edge-case behavior (omitted fields, auth) is left unstated.

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%, yet the description documents both parameters: blueprint_id as a Blueprint UUID and data as the full payload with a cross-reference to create_blueprint for its shape. The cross-reference is genuinely valuable since BlueprintData's many nested fields are largely undocumented in the schema.

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 — 'Replace the full data payload of an existing blueprint' — and the word 'existing' separates it from create_blueprint. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the operation and its target are unambiguous.

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?

'Replace the full' implies a whole-payload overwrite rather than a partial edit, and 'existing blueprint' implies the blueprint must already exist, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to use this versus create_blueprint or delete_blueprint, nor any prerequisites.

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