write_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does notable work: 'Changes are only persisted if save is given' discloses the persistence/no-op behavior, and the numeric vs text value rules ('shorter arrays leave the rest untouched') describe partial-write semantics. It still omits any auth/permission or return-value context.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler; each sentence yields a distinct behavioral rule. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for the operation.

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-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk semantics (persistence, per-row value alignment). Remaining parameters (sheet, attach, path) are well covered in the schema, so the description need not repeat them.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: exactly-one-value-per-case for numeric columns, null handling, and that text arrays shorter than the column leave remaining rows untouched. It also reinforces that save governs persistence.

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: 'Overwrite whole variables in a spreadsheet.' This clearly distinguishes it from add_variables, rename_variables, and read_variables by intent, though it never names a sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Usage is implied by 'overwrite' (existing variables only, versus add_variables), and the numeric/text value rules hint at application context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites (e.g., a running STATISTICA instance for attach).

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