document_add_server_variable

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'add a variable' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether existing variables are overwritten, whether the server must exist, or authorization needs). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks critical context about return values, error states, or behavioral nuances. It is too sparse to fully orient the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., not explaining 'enum' as a JSON array or 'nodePath' as path to server). Baseline 3 applies as no additional semantic value.

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 the verb 'Add' and the resource 'variable to a server definition', and specifies it's for OpenAPI 3.x only. This makes the purpose distinct from siblings like document_add_server or document_remove_server_variable.

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 specifies the constraint 'OpenAPI 3.x only', guiding when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools (e.g., when to use this vs. modifying a server directly) or provide conditions for non-use.

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