Set or delete a console variable

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the automatic read-back verification, that text keeps its quotes exactly, that type is inferred from the value, that batch items run in order with no retries and an unknown outcome halts the rest, and how stop_on_failure interacts with object-level dependencies.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the rest is one dense run-on paragraph with heavy parenthetical nesting (batch semantics, detail, stop_on_failure all stacked). Every clause carries information, yet the batch rules would be far easier to parse as separate sentences or a short list.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mutation semantics, verification, batch ordering and failure handling thoroughly. The gap is the return shape: 'one line per item' and 'detail: true for every step' are gestured at but not concretely described, and the single-form error behavior is left unstated.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: outer arguments act as per-item defaults and an item's own fields win, and text values retain quoting. It stops short of explaining the interplay of verify/detail in the single form, but the batch defaulting rule is genuinely additive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: set a global or user variable to a typed value, or delete it, then read it back. The dual set/delete behavior and the type handling are made explicit. It does not name the sibling read/list tool (gma3_variables) that an agent would use instead of the read-back, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives real usage context: variables are referenced by macros and cue commands as $name outside quotes, a user variable shadows a global one, and bridge 0.31.0 is required. It also spells out when the batch form applies (list instead of single fields, defaults for every item). No explicit 'use X instead when...' routing to a sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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