variable_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the dual behavior (set vs. action) and the use_action parameter, but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, permissions, or what happens on failure. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key usage nuance. No wasted 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more completeness. It omits details on success/error returns, prerequisites, type constraints on value, and the operational difference between SetValue and RequestAction. The tool is not fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 33% (only use_action has a description). The description adds meaning for variable_id (the variable to set) and hints at use_action preference, but value is not described. It does not fully compensate for the low coverage, leaving ambiguity about parameter semantics.

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 sets an IP-Symcon variable or triggers an action, distinguishing between two use cases (variable setting and actuator action). It uses specific verb 'setzt' and resource 'Variable', and differentiates from siblings like variable_read.

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 gives partial guidance: it mentions that for actuators, RequestAction is preferred, implying when to use the action mode. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like script_execute or variable_read, nor does it provide when-not-to-use conditions.

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