generate_service_blueprint

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not required to duplicate that. It adds useful behavioral detail by specifying that the output is a self-contained HTML page, that two-actor rendering creates a line of interaction between the swim lanes, and that ideal-state mode changes the output to side-by-side. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core behavior, and the rest only explains mode selection and optional behavior. Examples like 'customer ↔ lawyer' are immediately clarifying rather than synthetic fat, and nothing is repeated unnecessarily.

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 rendering tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what is generated, when actors are needed, and how the optional ideal state changes the result. It could also describe more edge behavior, but the mode explanations and schema documentation jointly make the tool practically usable.

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 schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is at 3. The description adds value by interpreting `actors` as the runtime switch between two fundamentally different rendering modes and by clarifying that `ideal` triggers a side-by-side comparison. This semantic guidance goes beyond a field-by-field schema listing.

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 names the deliverable explicitly — a self-contained HTML service blueprint — and the main verb is specific: 'Render'. It also distinguishes two supported modes (single-actor Shostack and two-actor HI-loop), so an agent can quickly tell what this tool does and how its forms differ.

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 a clear condition for choosing a mode: omit `actors` for classic single-actor rendering, provide `actors` for the two-swim-lane layout, and optionally provide an ideal-state for side-by-side rendering. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or give 'when-not-to-use' guidance, but the mode selection rules are concrete and decision-ready.

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