build_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the blueprint is built as one job, that the top-left entity is anchored, that there is a 1000-entity limit, and that per-step failures are reported. It does not cover queueing, cancellation, permissions, or side effects, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 sentences with no filler. The most important behavior (whole-blueprint, one-job, anchored) is front-loaded, followed by source modes, limits, and error reporting. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter job-building tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the core flow, limits, and failure reporting. The output schema covers return values, so that burden is lifted. Minor gaps remain around the 'book' parameter and the precise meaning of 'carried blueprint by label', but the description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in most cases.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the anchoring semantics ('top-left entity lands at anchor_x, anchor_y') and the two source modes ('export string' or 'carried blueprint by label'). Schema coverage is partial at 63%, and the description helps compensate for some undocumented parameters, though book, replace, wait_s, and stop_on_error remain mostly schema-dependent.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Build a whole blueprint as ONE job') on a specific resource, with anchoring behavior and input sources specified. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like build_plan or import_blueprint by emphasizing whole-blueprint, job-based execution.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you want a whole blueprint built as a single job, from either an export string or a carried blueprint label. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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