variant_create

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but omits important details such as whether the created variant becomes active, what happens on name conflicts, or any side effects on existing variants. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and the optional cloning behavior. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 creation tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. However, the absence of any annotations means operational context (e.g., prerequisites like an active project, or whether the new variant is auto-activated) is not addressed. The output schema helps with return values, but a bit more context would improve completeness.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by indicating that 'name' is the new variant's name and that 'base_variant' is an existing variant to optionally clone. This clarifies both parameters' roles, though it does not specify exact format or constraints (which the schema partially covers via types and default).

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's action ('Create a new design variant') and scope ('optionally cloning an existing variant'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like variant_list, variant_set_active, and variant_export_bom by focusing on creation.

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 creating variants) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The optional cloning behavior hints at a use case, but no when/when-not guidance is provided.

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