Updates an existing VCF Automation blueprint by ID using its YAML content and metadata, so you can modify blueprint definitions and sharing settings.
Updates a blueprint PUT /blueprint/api/blueprints/{blueprintId}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Blueprint object | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information please refer to /blueprint/api/about | |
| blueprintId | Yes | (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only contribution is the PUT endpoint string, which duplicates the annotation title. It omits the important behavioral question for a PUT: whether omitted body fields are cleared/overwritten, and whether a new blueprint version is created.
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 with no filler, so it is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance — the second line is a raw endpoint rather than usable context. Front-loading is acceptable but the content earns little.
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?
This is a mutation tool with a nested body object and no output schema. The description doesn't cover replace-vs-merge semantics, existence requirements, or versioning side effects. Annotations cover safety but not the operational behavior an agent needs to call a PUT update correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents blueprintId, body fields, and apiVersion. The description adds no parameter guidance — no indication of which body fields are required on update, or how to treat partial payloads. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.
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 says 'Updates a blueprint', which restates the tool name rather than clarifying scope, and adds only the raw HTTP path. It doesn't distinguish this full PUT replacement from siblings like blueprint_create_blueprint_version, blueprint_update_property_group, or onboarding_patch_blueprint_by_id. The verb+resource is identifiable, but the statement adds no meaning beyond the name.
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 guidance on when to use this versus patching, creating a version, or calling onboarding_patch_blueprint_by_id. No prerequisites (e.g., the blueprint must already exist) or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.