set_cvar

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value: it reads the value back after setting, and it errors honestly on a missing cvar rather than silently no-oping. It does not elaborate on what state is mutated or permission needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the middle sentence drops to raw C++ implementation detail (IConsoleManager::Get().FindConsoleVariable(name)->Set(...)) that an agent does not need. The return-field enumeration is justified since no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, enumerating the return fields (set, value, int_value, flags, set_by, etc.) is necessary and provided. Error behavior and read-back are covered; the only gap is retry/idempotency nuance, which annotations already cover.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name and value, with type coercion) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as accepted value formats or cvar name examples, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Sets a console variable via IConsoleManager') and explicitly contrasts itself with the raw console Exec path ('silently no-ops'), which maps to the sibling execute_console_command. An agent can distinguish this from the other cvar tools without opening a schema.

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 comparison to a 'raw console Exec which silently no-ops' gives clear context for why an agent would pick this over execute_console_command when it wants error feedback. It never names the sibling outright nor states when-not to use it, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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