st.variables.set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burcen. It explicitly discloses the mutating nature ('set or unset') and the prerequisite that confirm must be true. It does not explain persistency, reversibility, or side effects of unsetting, which would make it more transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the confirmation requirement is stated as a separate actionable note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficiently complete. It communicates the high-level action and one prerequisite, but leaves multiple parameters and potential side effects unexplained, so an agent will likely need to guess or inspect the schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and 6 params, but the description only addresses confirm ('requires confirm: true') and vaguely implies unset behavior. It does not explain value, asJson, snapshotLabel, or the exact role of unset, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent trying to construct a correct call.

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 specific operation ('Set or unset') and the exact resource ('a global ST slash/macro variable'). The word 'global' differentiates this from st.chat.variables.set and st.variables.registry, so an agent can select it appropriately.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a global ST slash/macro variable needs to be created or removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the global-vs-chat distinction is implicit and sufficient for most routing decisions.

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