add_blueprint_variable

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It fails to mention side effects such as whether the Blueprint asset is modified on disk, whether compilation is triggered, or what happens if the variable already exists. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured, though it is quite terse and could provide a bit more detail without becoming verbose. This is efficient but border-line under-specification.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or the significance of the default_value parameter. For a mutation tool that modifies a Blueprint asset, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already explains variable_name, variable_type, blueprint_path, and default_value. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. According to the rubric, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3.

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 a variable to a Blueprint.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and a specific resource (a variable), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_blueprint_component and add_blueprint_function. The purpose is unambiguous even though minimal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools (e.g., add_blueprint_function). The only implied usage is the obvious action, but there is no explicit context or alternative differentiation.

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