fusion_set_parameter

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates or updates parametersholidays and explicitly states that referencing in later numeric fields is not supported – a key behavioral trait. It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but for a simple setter, this is acceptable. It goes beyond just saying

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 two sentences, clearly structured: first states the action with an example, second explains the limitation and purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema tricks, the description covers the essential purpose, the create/update behavior, and a key limitation. It's sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it. Could mention that it also updates existing parameters, but that's implied by 'Create (or update)'. Overall, complete enough.

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%, but the description provides an example that clarifies both parameters: name and expression (with value format). That gives the agent sufficient context to understand the semantics without needing schema descriptions. The example is concrete and helpful.

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: 'Create (or update) a Fusion user parameter' with an explicit example. It distinguishes itself from other fusion tools by explaining its specific purpose (maintaining a parameter table) and a limitation (no referencing later). This is specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 explains when to use it (to keep the parameter table meaningful for a human) and explicitly warns about a limitation (not supported for numeric field references). It doesn't compare to direct siblings like fusion_list_parameters, but given the context of many fusion_* sibling tools, it's clear enough. No explicit exclusions, but the limitation serves as a

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