debuggerSetVariableValue

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses that the new value affects subsequent program execution, can force a branch the data would not otherwise reach, and may make a program behave in unintended ways. This adds meaningful safety context beyond the structured fields.

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 first sentence is direct and front-loaded, but the middle phrase 'as the debugger lets you' is filler, and the branch-reaching explanation is expressed twice. The warning is useful but could be condensed. It is not bloated, yet it is less efficient than it could be.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: the process must be stopped, the value changes, and subsequent execution reflects the new value. The safety caveat is included. It could mention failure conditions or scope restrictions, but nothing critical is missing for basic correct invocation.

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 the input schema already documents variableName and value. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning such as type constraints, variable scope, or accepted value formats. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Change a variable in the stopped process.' This clearly distinguishes it from debugger reading tools like debuggerVariables and debuggerChildVariables, and from control tools like debuggerStep and debuggerSetBreakpoints. The mutation intent is unmistakable.

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 gives a clear context: the variable is changed while the process is stopped, and the effect persists when execution continues. It also adds an explicit limitation, 'Only for a session you are deliberately steering,' which warns against casual use. It does not name alternatives, but the usage context is specific enough.

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