create_blueprint_variable

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creation but does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, or required permissions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. It could be more structured but is not verbose. Every sentence adds some value.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details on many parameters, return values, or behavioral context. For a tool with 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage, more information is needed for complete understanding.

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 description adds meaning for variable_type by listing valid values (bool, int, float, string, vector, rotator), compensating for schema's lack of descriptions. However, other parameters like tooltip, category, is_public, default_value, variable_name, and blueprint_name are not explained. Schema coverage is 0%, so partial compensation.

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 'Create a variable in a Blueprint' and lists allowed types, making the core action and resource clear. It is distinct from siblings like add_component_to_blueprint or delete_blueprint_variable, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other variable-related tools such as set_blueprint_variable_properties or create_blueprint. No context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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