debuggerSetVariableValue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation operation ('Sets'), but doesn't disclose critical details like permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, side effects (e.g., on program execution), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place without redundancy or ambiguity.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what happens after setting the value (e.g., program state changes), error handling, or usage constraints. For a tool that modifies debugger state, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., variable naming conventions, value formatting rules, or examples). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 action ('Sets') and target ('value of a debugger variable'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like debuggerVariables (which likely reads variables) and debuggerSetBreakpoints (which sets breakpoints). However, it doesn't specify whether this applies to local/global variables or specific debugger contexts, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), exclusions (e.g., read-only variables), or related tools like debuggerVariables for reading variables. This leaves the agent with minimal context for appropriate tool selection.

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