f360_set_parameter

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key side effect: 'Changing a parameter automatically rebuilds all features that reference it.' It also scopes the effect to the 'active design'. It does not say what happens when the named parameter is missing, whether the change is reversible, or what the call returns.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The closing workflow hint is useful but slightly more tactical than the rest, keeping it just short of ideal tightness.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, side effects, and intended workflow. The notable remaining gap is error/return behavior, which no other structured field supplies.

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%, so name, unit enum, and value are already well documented in the structured data; baseline is 3. The description adds only the constraint that the name must refer to an existing parameter, which is more behavioral than parametric.

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 ('Updates a named user parameter in the active Fusion 360 design') and explicitly positions itself against siblings f360_create_parameter and f360_list_parameters. An agent can distinguish it from the create/list variants without opening any 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 an explicit precondition ('must already exist... created manually in Fusion or via f360_create_parameter'), which routes the creation case to the sibling. It also names the intended workflow ('batch variant generation: call once per variant, then export'), so both when-to-use and the alternative are stated.

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