Name a variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses that the variables array grows if the id is beyond current size, but does not mention side effects, persistence behavior, permission requirements, or error conditions (e.g., invalid names). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentences with an example—no wasted words. Critical information is front-loaded. Ideal conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or confirmation of success. It also omits error handling, prerequisites (e.g., project loaded), and relationship to other tools (e.g., get_system to verify). Adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: the 'id' parameter is described (1-based), but 'name' lacks description. The description adds an example suggesting 'name' is a string, but does not specify format, length limits, or allowed characters. Overall, minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 the editor name of a game variable in System.json' and provides a concrete example ('e.g. variable 3 = 'Quest Progress''). This uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings, as no other sibling focuses on variable naming.

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 via the example and notes array auto-growth for new IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reading variables or setting other system properties). No usage exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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