blueprint_create_blueprint_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: it does not say the call is asynchronous and returns a request to poll, mention plan/simulate/destroy flag interplay, or note that the optional destroy flag can tear down an existing deployment despite destructiveHint=false.

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 very short and front-loaded, but that brevity comes from omission rather than discipline; the second line is a raw REST path that duplicates the annotation title "POST /blueprint/api/blueprint-requests" and adds no information.

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 create/mutation tool with a deeply nested body, no output schema, and an async execution model, the description should explain the returned request identifier and how to follow up (get_blueprint_request, get_blueprint_request_execution). None of that is present, so an agent cannot infer the post-call workflow.

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 100%, including the nested body fields with their own explanations of plan, simulate, destroy, and mutual-exclusion rules, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional semantics, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

"Creates a blueprint request" states a verb and a resource, but it essentially restates the tool name plus the raw endpoint path. It gives no indication of what a blueprint request actually is (an execution/plan of a blueprint) or how it differs from close siblings like blueprint_create_blueprint, blueprint_create_blueprint_version, or blueprint_validate_blueprint.

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 at all: nothing says to call this rather than blueprint_create_blueprint, blueprint_validate_blueprint, or catalog_request_catalog_item_instances, and no mention of prerequisites such as a released blueprint version being required.

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