make_update_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the PATCH method, that it modifies real structure, requires confirmed:true (a tool-specific gate not in Make's API), takes a before snapshot and returns it as 'before_blueprint', and states that this is only a recovery aid and does not block or compare. This is thorough transparency.

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 front-loaded with 'HIGH RISK' and the core update action, then details the mandatory workflow and recovery behavior. While somewhat long, every sentence provides essential safety context; no 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 high-risk mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, this description covers the safety workflow, the confirmed gate, the before_blueprint recovery mechanism, and the return behavior. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to misuse it.

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 already documents all six parameters, but the description adds semantics: confirmed is proof of the approval workflow, and blueprint is optional—omitting it allows partial updates to name/folder/scheduling. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 action: updating a scenario's blueprint, scheduling, name, and/or folder via PATCH. It explicitly identifies the resource and scope, and the 'HIGH RISK' warning distinguishes it from read-only siblings like make_get_blueprint. This clearly differentiates it from related tools.

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?

It provides a mandatory workflow: call make_get_blueprint first, present the diff for approval, and prefer testing on a clone via make_clone_scenario. It also explains the confirmed:true requirement as the safety gate, giving explicit when-to-use guidance and alternatives.

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