set_blueprint_variable_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior, but omits important details such as whether changes are reversible, if recompilation is triggered, or any prerequisites. The agent lacks context on side effects or safety considerations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the partial update behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations) but presence of an output schema, the description is partially adequate. It covers the partial update aspect but lacks context on error conditions, side effects, and prerequisites. More details would be beneficial for a modification tool with many optional fields.

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 general optionality semantics ('all parameters except two are optional, only provided values changed'), but with 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain individual parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning per parameter beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 'Modify properties of an existing Blueprint variable', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_blueprint_variable (create) and set_blueprint_node_property (node properties), and the partial update behavior is noted.

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 context for use is clear: when you need to modify an existing variable's properties. The second sentence clarifies that only provided values change, implying a targeted update. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_blueprint_variable or get_blueprint_variable_details, nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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