add_array_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects such as blueprint mutation, compile requirements, overwrite behavior, or failure behavior if the variable already exists. The only behavioral context is that is_exposed affects visibility in the Details panel, which is more of a parameter detail.

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, with the core purpose stated first and additional information organized into Args, KB, and Example sections. The Args block partly duplicates the schema, but since the schema has no descriptions, it earns its place here.

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?

The description provides enough to attempt a basic call, especially with the example and parameter list. It omits prerequisites, expected failure modes, and explicit routing among related variable-creation tools, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It lists all four arguments with brief but meaningful explanations, including example element types and a concrete call example. However, element_type is left open-ended with 'etc.', so some ambiguity remains.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Add an Array variable to a Blueprint.' It also defines what an Array is, and the sibling list includes add_map_variable and add_set_variable, so naming the container type helps distinguish it from those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over add_blueprint_variable, add_map_variable, or add_set_variable. The KB reference is a pointer to general data-structure documentation, not an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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