create_spare_parameter

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare mutation: no required permissions, no error behavior for duplicate parameter names, no validity constraints on parm_type, and no statement about how menu_items/min_val/max_val interact. It does at least make the write intent unambiguous, which keeps it above a 1.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline given an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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 8 parameters (4 required), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies essentially none of the information an agent needs to invoke this 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?

The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Critical semantics such as the allowed values for parm_type, the expected format of node_path, and the meaning of menu_items versus default_value are left entirely undefined in both places.

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 and resource ('Add a spare parameter') plus the target ('to a node'), so an agent knows this is a mutation that creates a parameter on an existing node. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'create_spare_parameters' (plural), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus 'create_spare_parameters', 'set_parameter', or 'get_parameter_schema', nor any prerequisites such as the node needing to exist. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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