f360_create_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly signals a mutation ('Creates') and clarifies that the value is numeric with a default unit of mm, but says nothing about permission/auth requirements, what happens if the name already exists, or what the call returns. Adequate but with real gaps for a write operation.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then usage routing, then a parameter note. No filler and nothing important buried.

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?

Covers purpose, the when-to-use condition, and the key parameter traits for a 4-param schema with no output schema. However, for an unannotated mutating tool it omits failure semantics (duplicate name, invalid unit) and side effects on the active design, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, including an enum for unit and a documented default of 'mm', so the baseline is 3. The description's note that the value is numeric and the unit defaults to mm restates what the schema already declares and adds no new parameter meaning.

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 and resource ('Creates a named user parameter in the active Fusion 360 design') and scopes it to the active design. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling f360_set_parameter, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition ('before f360_set_parameter when a design does not already define the parameter'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance against a named alternative. It stops short of telling the agent how to determine whether the parameter already exists (e.g., via f360_list_parameters) or what to do on a name collision.

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