create_variants

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: variants appear as tabs, users can pick one as main, and the tool avoids overwriting the main script. It doesn't cover rate limits or permissions, but the core behavior is well explained.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and then provide the key usage guideline. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema, clear annotations), the description provides all necessary context: what it does, how variants behave, and when to use it versus overwriting. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by giving examples of variant names ('Punchy hook', 'Story first') and explaining that each variant shows as a tab, which clarifies the purpose of the 'variants' array beyond the schema's structural definition. This extra context warrants a 4.

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 (add alternative versions) and resource (the script). It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_variant or promote_variant by explaining the creation of multiple variants as tabs, and explicitly says to use this instead of overwriting the main script.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of overwriting the main script when offering options.' It also contrasts with the implied alternative of overwriting, giving clear guidance on selection.

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