add_tree_parameter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape, notably an "added" and "saved" flag implying the asset is persisted, but does not say how a duplicate parameter name is handled or whether a compile is needed — gaps that matter for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the return block is compact. No filler sentences; the only mild redundancy is restating parameter_name/parameter_type in the return list, which is acceptable given there is no output schema.

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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation, the definition covers purpose, target scope, and return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete but omits edge-case behavior (existing name, need to compile/save) that would round it out.

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 coverage is 100%: each of the three parameters is documented, including the allowed scalar types for parameter_type. The description only restates "typed parameter" without adding format, defaulting, or validation details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Add") and resource ("typed parameter to a UStateTree's root parameter bag"), and adds the scope qualifier "root" plus "usable for bindings". It does not name the neighboring state-tree tools (set_tree_parameter, remove_tree_parameter, list_tree_parameters), so the agent must infer the add-vs-set distinction from the verb alone.

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?

"Usable for bindings" hints at why one might want a parameter but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (tree must exist, must be uncompiled, etc.), and no exclusions relative to set_tree_parameter or remove_tree_parameter. The agent gets no routing signal among the state-tree parameter siblings.

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