blueprint_remove_variable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose important side effects (compile and save) beyond just removing the variable, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential errors, reversibility, or other behavioral details, so it's only minimally 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action. Every word contributes value; there is no irrelevant detail or repetition.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter mutation tool with a clear schema. The description covers the action and side effects, which is sufficient for the likely use cases. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but no output schema exists and the behavior is straightforward, so this is adequate.

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 100%, with each parameter clearly described (e.g., 'Variable name to remove' and 'Content path of the Blueprint asset'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') with the resource ('member variable from a Blueprint') and the additional side effects ('compile and save'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blueprint_add_variable or blueprint_remove_function.

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 implies the use case (removing a variable), and the context is clear enough given the sibling set. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that a user would know when to invoke it.

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