Add custom parameters

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

Description discloses key behaviors: appending parameters, skipping existing ones with a warning, auto-capitalization of page name, and parameter name sanitization. Annotations already indicate non-destructive operation, and the description adds valuable contextual details without contradiction. No annotation contradiction detected.

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: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and action, then provides usage guidance and references to related tools. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, required comp_path and params, no output schema), the description covers the essential workflow and behavior. It could mention error handling for invalid comp_path or parameter validation, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It only mentions `comp_path` and `params` in passing, while the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, including default values and constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Append a custom-parameter page to a COMP') and the purpose ('so a generated network becomes a tunable, reusable component'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying the unique function of adding parameters, and it references related tools for further workflow, aiding differentiation.

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 on when to use the tool: to make a COMP tunable. It mentions pairing with `scaffold_extension` and `manage_component` for a complete workflow, and notes that existing parameters are skipped (not overwritten). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or situations where the tool should not be used.

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