expose_parameter

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the load; it does disclose meaningful behavior about binding and the no-default fallback, which goes beyond the bare schema. It omits whether the new parameter persists without save_package, what happens on duplicate identifiers, reversibility, and error conditions for a 13-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the creation action comes first, followed by binding semantics and the type enumeration. No filler sentences, though the enumeration of types is a dense tail rather than structured.

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?

With 13 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves most of the call surface unexplained, including scoping (graph/package), UI metadata (group/label/description) and numeric bounds. It is adequate for the core action only.

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 0% and 13 parameters are undocumented, while the description explains only three of them: node_id/node_parameter as a binding pair, the absent-default behavior, and the valid type values. Identifier, graph, package, group, label, description, min, max and step get no explanation anywhere.

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 uses a concrete verb plus resource ('Crea un parametro del grafo') and explains the distinctive twist: the new parameter can be bound to a node's parameter via node_id + node_parameter. This separates it from sibling set_node_parameter well enough, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 gives conditional semantics: if node_id and node_parameter are supplied, the graph parameter controls that node parameter, and without a default the linked parameter inherits the node's current value. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over set_node_parameter or how to handle an already-bound parameter.

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