set_variable

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies a variable, requires a stopped state, and expects parameters from related tools. It includes an escape hatch for advanced use. Annotations provide only openWorldHint, so the description carries full responsibility, and it covers the key behavioral aspects.

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 first line stating the purpose, followed by required state and parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is efficient.

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 description adequately covers the tool's functionality and parameter usage for a debugging context. It mentions the escape hatch for advanced cases. However, it could be improved by noting potential error conditions or the scope of variable modification.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter: variables_reference as from get_scopes or get_variables, name as variable name, value as a string expression. This adds necessary context beyond mere types.

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 tool's action: 'Set a variable's value during debugging.' It specifies the resource (a variable in the current scope) and distinguishes it from other debug tools like get_variables or evaluate_expression.

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 explicit prerequisites: 'State: STOPPED required' and 'The program must be stopped.' It also advises to use get_variables first to obtain the variables_reference. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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