Manage Variables

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

With only openWorldHint annotation, the description carries a moderate transparency burden. It discloses action-specific required parameters, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or whether updates overwrite existing values. The schema and output schema cover some detail, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add key constraints. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its 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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, 3 actions, union value types), the description plus the detailed schema creates a fairly complete picture. The existence of an output schema covers return values. A minor gap is the lack of workflow guidance (e.g., how to use variable_list results here), but the description is sufficient for an agent to act.

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. The tool description restates requirements already present in the schema (e.g., currentVariableName for UPDATE_VARIABLE), adding no new semantic depth. The schema itself thoroughly documents each parameter, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool as a create/update router for collections and variables, with the specific verbs 'Create' and 'set their values/aliases.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like variable_list (listing) and variable_delete (deletion), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit parameter requirements for two actions (UPDATE_VARIABLE requires currentVariableName; CREATE_VARIABLE requires collectionName and scopes), which helps the agent know what inputs are needed. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the 'create/update router' framing implies its role among siblings.

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