ue_add_variable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states that the tool adds a variable and recompiles, but does not mention side effects like overwriting existing variables or performance implications. More explicit behavioral details would improve 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 a single paragraph that is relatively concise and front-loaded with the main action and requirement. However, it could benefit from bullet points for parameters, and the Italian language may affect readability for some agents.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters and provides version context. It lacks mention of return values or error handling, but for a mutation tool this is acceptable.

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 provides explanations for all 7 parameters, including allowed types for var_type and sub_type, and notes that default_value works only with simple types. This compensates fully for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Aggiunge' (adds) and the resource 'variabile membro a un Blueprint' and specifies that it also recompiles. This distinguishes it from siblings like ue_add_component or ue_create_blueprint.

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 includes a note about UE 5.4+ requirement and references ue_status to check capabilities, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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