blueprint_update_terraform_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 the HTTP method and path (which the annotation title already contains) — notably it omits whether the body is a partial merge or full replacement, which matters for a PATCH endpoint declared non-idempotent.

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 single-sentence purpose is front-loaded and efficient, but the second line duplicates the endpoint already present in the annotation title, so it does not earn its place. Net result is short but partly redundant.

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 with a nested body object, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage — yet the description leaves open substantive questions: whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, and what the response contains. For a non-idempotent PATCH on infrastructure configuration, more context is warranted.

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%, so all three top-level fields and every nested body property are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 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?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ('Updates a terraform version'), so an agent knows exactly what entity is being mutated. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling operations such as blueprint_create_terraform_version, blueprint_get_terraform_version, or blueprint_delete_terraform_version — the agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. does the version need to exist / be disabled first?), and no mention of the create/get/delete siblings. The only implicit guidance is the word 'Updates' plus the PATCH path.

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