debuggerSetVariableValue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'sets a value', which is a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, dependencies (e.g., needing an attached debugger), or failure conditions (e.g., read-only variables). This is a minimal restatement of the tool's name with no additional transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff, which is appropriate for a simple setter tool. However, it lacks any structured guidance or supplementary notes that could enhance its utility without adding verbosity. It is efficient but not exceptionally structured, earning a 4.

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?

The tool is part of a debugger workflow (evidenced by sibling tools like debuggerAttach and debuggerStep), but the description fails to mention any operational prerequisites or contextual usage details. There is no output schema to clarify return values, and the description does not compensate with notes about session requirements, error behavior, or typical use cases. The description is therefore incomplete for a mutation tool in a complex environment.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (variableName and value), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Sets' and identifies the resource 'debugger variable', making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling debugger tools like debuggerVariables (which likely lists variables) and debuggerStep (which changes execution state). The intent is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an active debugger session, a selected stack frame, or that the variable must be in scope. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the user to infer usage context from the name.

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