Creates an onboarding blueprint in the current organization from a parent plan, with optional deployment and template links or automatic template generation.
Create an onboarding blueprint Create an onboarding blueprint in the current organization POST /relocation/onboarding/blueprint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the blueprint is created 'in the current organization' and gives the HTTP path, but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or what happens if planLink is invalid.
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 short and front-loads the action, but the first two lines are redundant ('Create an onboarding blueprint' repeated twice), and the HTTP endpoint adds little for an agent. It could be reduced to a single useful sentence without losing 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 tool with a nested body and no output schema, the annotations and full schema coverage provide the essential structured information. However, the description does not explain the relationship between planLink, templateLink, and autogenerate, or what 'current organization' means in practice, leaving some contextual gaps for correct invocation.
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%, with every nested body property (name, planLink, autogenerate, templateLink, deploymentLink) documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('onboarding blueprint'), and adds scope ('in the current organization'). It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling get/patch/delete tools by verb, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., onboarding_get_blueprint or onboarding_patch_blueprint_by_id), nor does it state prerequisites or conditions for choosing between body fields like autogenerate and templateLink. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.