Update run-time variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses merge semantics ('keys in variables[] are added or overwritten, existing keys not listed are preserved'), server-side sanitization ('drops invalid keys'), and return behavior ('Returns a confirmation on success'). It could further state that this operation modifies persistent state, but the word 'upsert' and the merge details convey the mutation clearly.

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 three sentences long, each packed with essential information: purpose and levels, level-specific logic, and merge/validation behaviors. There is no fluff or repetition; every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, level-specific details, merge behavior, validation, and success confirmation. It omits edge cases like error handling or limits, but for the intended use, it is sufficiently complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for all parameters with detailed descriptions, including the enum for 'level', the conditional requirement for 'suiteUuid', and the pattern for 'key'. The description adds a concise summary of these semantics but does not introduce additional meaning beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Upsert the run-time variables (additionalVariables) that drive analysis/agent runs, at either level.' It specifies the two levels (PROJECT and ANALYSIS) and distinguishes itself from related tools like wopee_fetch_variables (reading) and wopee_update_artifact (different resource).

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 context by explaining the two levels and their requirements (e.g., 'ANALYSIS requires suiteUuid'), and by contrasting with fetching operations via sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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