add_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses idempotency, non-overwriting behavior, reserved-name validation, and the Fusion math-binding rationale. It does not describe return or error behavior, but the side effects and gotchas it does reveal are specific and useful.

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 three short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds parameter shape and a non-obvious validation note. No sentence is wasted.

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 one-array parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter shape, idempotency, and validation behavior. It does not explain what the tool returns or how errors surface, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 is a generic array of objects with no property descriptions, so the 'Each def: {name, expression, units?, comment?}' line adds essential structure. It also notes reserved math names. It could further clarify value types, expression syntax, or unit formats, but it compensates well for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add user parameters.' It also clarifies that existing names are skipped, not overwritten, which distinguishes this from update_parameter and list_parameters. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 clear context: it is idempotent, safe to re-run, and will not overwrite existing parameters. It implicitly separates this from update_parameter, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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