update_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the update replaces the full payload (destructive overwrite), which is critical. However, it doesn't mention idempotency, version conflicts, or whether existing fields not included in data are cleared, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a concise bullet list for parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the complex schema (nested objects) and no annotations, the description provides essential behavioral context (full replacement) and references the creation schema for data shape. An output schema exists, so return values aren't needed. Minor gap: no mention of versioning or conflict handling.

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?

The description adds meaning by stating 'data' must be the full blueprint payload with the same shape as create_blueprint, which the schema alone doesn't clarify. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates. However, the blueprint_id parameter is minimally described as 'Blueprint UUID'.

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 clearly states it replaces the full data payload of an existing blueprint, using specific verbs and resources ('Replace the full data payload of an existing blueprint'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_blueprint (creates new) and delete_blueprint (deletes).

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?

The description implies this tool is for updating an existing blueprint, contrasting with create_blueprint for new ones. It notes the 'data' parameter must have the same shape as create_blueprint, guiding reuse of the creation schema. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions for partial updates are given.

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