Set parameter expression / bind / constant

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

The description discloses fail-forward behavior (per-item failures accumulate as warnings, partial batch still returns results), which is beyond the annotations. It also explains what each mode does at the internal API level (par.expr, par.bindExpr, par.val, par.reset()), adding transparency about effects. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false.

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 logically structured: first lists modes, then restrictions, then error behavior. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds unique value. The fail-forward sentence could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with five modes, array assignments, and environmental restrictions, the description covers the key behavioral nuances: mode semantics, restricted mode availability, and partial failure handling. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the description is adequate for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by mapping modes to actual parameter fields (par.expr, par.bindExpr, par.val) and clarifying that 'constant' uses the `value` parameter, plus an example expression. This exceeds simply restating the schema.

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 verb ('Set') and resource ('parameters on a node') and enumerates five distinct modes ('expression', 'bind', 'constant', 'reset', 'unbind'), making the tool's function clear and distinct from siblings like set_parameters_batch which likely handles simple value assignments.

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?

It provides usage context by explaining that expression/bind modes require TDMCP_RAW_PYTHON=on and TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=1, and that in restricted mode only constant/reset/unbind are available via the structured endpoint. This gives clear guidance on when modes are usable, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for simple parameter setting.

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