Sets a named parameter on a live programmable BuilderResult using incremental mode, updating state in a running hx-multianim game.
Set a parameter on a live programmable BuilderResult (uses incremental mode)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| param | Yes | Parameter name | |
| value | Yes | New value | |
| programmable | Yes | Programmable name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'incremental mode' and the target is a 'live' result, hinting at mutation and possibly triggering re-evaluation, but doesn't disclose side effects, reversibility, or performance implications. The behavior is only partially transparent.
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?
Single sentence with front-loaded action and parenthetical note about mode. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by stating prerequisites upfront.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the parameter, whether it triggers an update, or what 'incremental mode' entails, leaving gaps 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or constraints, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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?
States a specific verb (Set) and resource (parameter on a live programmable BuilderResult), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling get_parameters, which likely retrieves parameters, so the 'set vs get' distinction is implied rather than named.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The description says 'on a live programmable' but doesn't state prerequisites like whether the programmable must be connected or paused, and it doesn't mention get_parameters for reading values.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.