Set Environment Variable

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It adds the key merge behavior (other variables preserved), but omits other traits like file persistence, environment existence requirements, or secret-handling caveats (though the schema covers the secret behavior in detail).

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?

Two short clauses deliver the core purpose and the critical merge note without any filler. Every word 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 simple mutation tool with a rich schema, the description plus schema provide adequate context for selection and invocation. It lacks explicit error/return behavior, but the merge note covers the main surprise.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds little parameter-specific value beyond its 'add or update' and 'single variable' framing, which is minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('a single variable in an existing Bruno environment'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_environment_variable and broader update_environment.

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?

It conveys clear context: add or update a single variable within an existing environment, with merging semantics. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as create_environment or remove_environment_variable.

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