dbg_set_variable

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'set' implying mutation, but fails to state side effects, error conditions, or whether the change persists. No indication of required permissions or destructive potential.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not use formatting for readability. While minimal, it could include a short example or more detail without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of a debugger tool with many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (no output schema), error handling for invalid refs or names, or behavior when the variable does not exist.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'ref' and 'name' as variable identification, but does not clarify session_id (likely debugging session) or value (new value). Two of four parameters remain unexplained.

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 identifies the action (set a variable) and the key identification method (by container ref + name). It distinguishes this tool from others like dbg_evaluate or dbg_read_memory. However, it could be more explicit about the setting operation being a mutation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative debugging tools (e.g., dbg_evaluate for expression evaluation). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the debugger must be paused or a session active.

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