instantiate_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns a status and created template_id, and notably states it 'requires approval,' which is important behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on the approval process or other side effects like whether the operation is asynchronous.

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 concise and front-loaded, using two sentences to cover purpose, parameter, and return. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter, and the return value, including the approval caveat. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could briefly mention when to prefer this over create_pipeline to improve decision-making.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'blueprint_id: UUID of the blueprint to instantiate.' This clarifies the parameter's format (UUID) and its role, which the schema's generic 'string' type and title do not convey. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new pipeline template in the current organization based on a blueprint,' which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_pipeline by clarifying it operates from a blueprint, and also from list_blueprints/get_blueprint which are read-only.

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 implies the tool is used when you have a blueprint to instantiate, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_pipeline. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisite conditions beyond needing a blueprint_id.

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