gaea_set_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the action and one condition, but critically omits that drierun defaults to true, meaning a call with only required arguments would not actually mapply the change. It also doesn't disclose failure behavior if no variable object matches.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and key condition are presented immediately. Very efficient for the information it conveys.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description leaves out essential context: what the response looks like, what happens when no variable object exists, and the critical dryRun default behavior. An agent writing a correct call cannot infer the safe/efective invocation path from this description alone.

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. It hints that 'raph' identifies the graph and 'name'/'value' refer to the variable, but it says nothing about the semantical rol of 'dryRun' or its default. Very limited parameter-level meaning is added.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'Update', names the resource ('exposed variale in a graph'), and includes a precondition ('when a mating variable object exists'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling set_* tools by targeting variables rather than heightmaps or build outputs.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'when a matching variable object exists' describes a precondition for the operation, not which tool to choose among siblings. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the variable-updater.

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