Set Logic Variable

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds a type-matching constraint but does not disclose other behaviors like side effects, error conditions (e.g., missing variable), or permission requirements. Given existing annotations, the description provides only marginal added 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?

Two short sentences (24 words) efficiently convey the core action and key constraint. The information is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it quick to parse.

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 setter tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the essentials. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning preconditions (e.g., variable must exist) or error handling (e.g., type mismatch), which would help the agent anticipate responses.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions; the description merely echoes the value type constraint already present in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Set') and resource ('logic variable'), specifying the value type constraint (boolean, number, string). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_variables' and 'set_mood', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for setting variable values but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as creating a variable or modifying flows. No exclusions or context for when not to use it are provided.

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