gh_cad_set_param_and_solve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the key behavioral chain — setting the slider triggers a re-solve and a live TrackedBake update — but it does not disclose side effects such as whether prior baked geometry is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens when auto_bake=false. For a mutating tool on a live drawing, this is a notable gap.

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?

One 14-word sentence with zero filler; the action is front-loaded before the consequence. Every word 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. However, the description omits prerequisites (a pipeline built by gh_cad_build_pipeline, a valid slider name) and the meaning of auto_bake=false, leaving an agent to guess about important behavior for a tool that mutates a live CAD session.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'slider' to slider_name and the 'TrackedBake update' to the value/auto_bake effect, but pipeline_id is never explained and no parameter is explicitly defined beyond what the bare schema names. Partial compensation is present, not full.

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 states a specific action ('Set a Grasshopper parameter slider') with a clear resource and adds the behavioral consequence ('re-solve with live AutoCAD TrackedBake update'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gh_cad_build_pipeline or gh_cad_tracked_bake, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus the Grasshopper-CAD siblings (gh_cad_build_pipeline, gh_cad_tracked_bake, gh_cad_query_components). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are stated — an agent must infer that a pipeline and slider must already exist.

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