task_setVariables

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses scope persistence ('available in the process after task completion') and hints at type requirements ('Provide typed variable values'), but omits mutation semantics (overwrite vs merge), error behaviors, and authentication requirements.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope implications, and ending with input guidance. Each 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?

Adequate for a variable setter with no output schema, but the disconnect between 'Provide typed variable values' and the empty input schema leaves ambiguity about how variables should actually be transmitted (body format, encoding).

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty object), baseline is 4. The description mentions 'Provide typed variable values' which hints at expected input intent, though it cannot explain specific fields given the empty schema.

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 or update') and resource ('multiple variables on a user task'), explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'processInstance_setVariables' by specifying 'user task' and implying plurality compared to 'task_setVariable'.

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?

Provides temporal context ('available in the process after task completion') implying when data persists, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'task_setVariable' (singular) or 'processInstance_setVariables', and omits prerequisites or error conditions.

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