fusion_set_parameter

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 does mention that the tool recomputes after setting a parameter, which is a useful side effect, but it fails to disclose other potential behaviors like whether the operation can corrupt existing parameters, requires specific permissions, or might fail under certain design states. The description is too sparse for a mutation operation.

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 that front-loads the core action and side effect. There is no redundant or extraneous text, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity of the tool (nested spec, required document and operation IDs, and a design context), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the tool fits into the broader design workflow, what operation_id refers to, any prerequisites, or what happens when a parameter already exists. The absence of an output schema also means the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it does not.

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 description does not explain any of the parameters in the nested ParameterSpec object (name, expression, units, component, allow_shared_definition_edit). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'expression' without elaboration. It does not clarify how to specify components, units, or the meaning of the required IDs (document_id, operation_id).

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: creating or editing user/model parameter expressions and then recomputing. It identifies the resource (parameters) and the verb (create/edit). It slightly differentiates from siblings like fusion_edit_component_parameters by mentioning 'user/model parameter' vs component, but does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 such as fusion_recompute (recompute only) or fusion_edit_component_parameters (component-specific parameter edits). The description lacks any conditions, exclusions, or contextual triggers for when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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