Add, update, or remove a variation

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

With destructiveHint=true already signaling mutation risk, the description adds the VARIATION_HAS_DEPENDENTS failure mode and the dependency condition. It also discloses the need to obtain variationId via get_flag, which goes slightly beyond the annotation.

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?

At three sentences, the description is compact and front-loads the core action mapping. The opening sentence is somewhat redundant with the title, but the actionable conditional and failure-mode sentences earn their place.

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?

The description covers the action-dependent parameter requirements and a key failure mode, which is the main complexity of the tool. It does not describe the response shape or the semantics of optional fields like name/description, but the critical invocation knowledge is present.

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 only 38%, but the description mostly re-encodes what the schema already says for key, value, and variationId. It adds the useful 'get ids via get_flag' pointer but leaves name and description parameters unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 states the tool manages a flag's variations and enumerates the three concrete actions (add/update/remove). It also differentiates from sibling tools by specifying action-specific requirements, making it unambiguous versus get_flag or update_flag.

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 provides a clear context: use this tool to mutate variations, with action=add/update/remove. It points to get_flag as the source for variationId, which is an explicit prerequisite/alternative, though it does not state formal when-not-to-use exclusions.

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