blueprint_create_blueprint_version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating that it creates something and the endpoint path — it does not say whether the new version starts in released state or unreleased, whether it requires the blueprint to be validated first, or how it interacts with the release/unrelease tools.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The inclusion of a raw POST path adds little for an agent but is not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 mutation tool that creates a new version object with a nested body containing release and sourceControlPush flags, the description omits the meaningful outcomes an agent needs: resulting version state, effect of release=true versus a separate release call, and source control push behavior. With no output schema, that gap is not filled anywhere else.

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 descriptions for version, release, changeLog, description, and sourceControlPush, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable but not additive; baseline 3 applies.

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: creates a blueprint version for a given blueprint ID, which distinguishes it from get/list counterparts. It does not differentiate from the closely related siblings blueprint_release_blueprint_version or blueprint_restore_blueprint_version, so an agent must infer which mutating tool to pick.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus blueprint_release_blueprint_version, blueprint_restore_blueprint_version, or blueprint_update_blueprint, and no stated prerequisites (existing blueprint, required permissions). The only context is the raw REST path, which is schema-level information rather than usage guidance.

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