variable_configure

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

The description discloses behaviors like new IDs cloning the default master, existing IDs keeping drawings, and omitted IDs being removed, but the removal behavior contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. This is a significant inconsistency, so the description fails to provide accurate behavioral 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 concise, consisting of three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and adds behavioral details efficiently.

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 the complex schema with nested objects and many constraints, the description lacks guidance on how to specify axes and masters, the meaning of continuous axes, and the relationship between parameters. It mentions project context but not enough for an agent to construct a valid variation object. The output schema exists so return values are not needed, but input guidance is insufficient.

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?

The description provides no parameter information. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the parameters, including required fields like project_id, expected_revision, or the variation structure.

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 tool configures continuous axes and masters in a project, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from generic update tools by focusing on variable font configuration, though it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_update or font_edit. The description implies usage for configuring axes and masters but doesn't state conditions or exclusions.

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