create_variable_studio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that this is a creation operation, that it returns a new Variable Studio element id, and that it must precede set_variable. It does not cover edge cases like duplicate names or failure modes, but the core mutating behavior and follow-up usage are transparent enough for a simple create tool.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation, the second gives the key prerequisite and context, and the third explains the return value and usage. Every sentence earns its place and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly and explicitly explains the return value: 'Returns the new VS element id.' It also covers the prerequisite relationship with set_variable and the legacy read-only limitation, making the tool actionable without needing to inspect other definitions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter detail in the description. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for name, documentId, or workspaceId, but it does explain the output and sequencing rather than parameter formats, which is acceptable given the schema already documents each parameter.

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 and resource: 'Create a Variable Studio element in a workspace.' It also distinguishes this tool from related siblings by explaining it is required before set_variable on modern docs and that the legacy Part Studio write path is read-only, so an agent can tell it apart from create_part_studio or set_variable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Required before set_variable on modern Onshape docs.' It also explains why alternatives are not viable ('the legacy Part Studio /variables write path is read-only') and tells the agent to use the returned elementId with set_variable/get_variables, giving clear routing and sequencing guidance.

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