edb_set_variable

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the key behavioral traits. The description does not add significant context beyond what is in the annotations, such as side effects or scope implications.

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 concise with a clear structure: purpose, Args, Returns. Each sentence serves a purpose. The only minor waste is the Returns line which is minimal but acceptable.

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 (set a variable), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the operation, parameters, and return type. However, it does not mention error conditions or scope limitations explicitly, which could be clarified.

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 description's Args section adds meaningful examples and descriptions for the 'name' and 'value' parameters, going beyond the schema's property descriptions. This helps the agent understand variable naming conventions and value formatting.

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?

Clearly states the tool modifies a variable's value in the current scope, and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'edb_get_variable' which retrieves variables. The debugging context is also provided.

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?

Implied usage is during debugging to alter program behavior, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. The description lacks guidance on when to use this over other mutation tools like 'edb_set_register'.

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