add_map_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. 'Add' implies mutation, but the description does not disclose that the Blueprint asset is modified, whether an existing variable is overwritten, or whether saving/compiling is required afterward. This is a meaningful gap 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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and well-structured with Args, KB reference, and example. Some Arg lines (e.g., 'Blueprint name') merely restate the schema titles and the example contains questionable values, but overall it remains appropriately sized and scannable.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, data-structure semantics, parameters, and points to KB documentation, and an output schema exists. Missing are side-effect behavior, name-collision handling, and a corrected example, so the definition is adequate but not fully complete.

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 Args section adds value by explaining key_type and value_type with example types and is_exposed with editor Details panel behavior. However, the example is misleading: key_type="ExampleName" looks like a variable name and value_type=0.0 conflicts with the schema's string type, which could cause incorrect invocation.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a Map (dictionary) variable to a Blueprint.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_array_variable, add_set_variable, and add_blueprint_variable by naming the exact data structure being created.

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 implies when to use a Map via 'Maps store key-value pairs with O(1) lookup by key,' but it never explicitly contrasts this with array/set variables or names alternatives. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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