create_catalog_variable

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description's '[Write]' prefix is redundant but consistent. However, it provides no additional behavioral context such as behavior on duplicate variable names, whether the variable is appended or replaces, or failure modes. The openWorldHint suggests possible side effects not disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with a '[Write]' prefix that immediately signals the operation type. It is concise, with no wasted words or redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., the sys_id of the created variable) or any error conditions. It also does not mention the dependency on an existing catalog item beyond the parameter itself. While the schema covers parameter details, the lack of return behavior and side-effect disclosure leaves the description adequate but incomplete for a write operation.

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 descriptions cover all six parameters with 100% coverage, including the allowed values for 'type'. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('form variable' to a 'service catalog item'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_catalog_item, which creates the item itself, and order_catalog_item, which is a different action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the catalog item already existing. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used as a sub-action for an existing catalog item.

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