add_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the name must be unique, what happens on collision, whether an active document is required, or whether the new parameter triggers a model rebuild.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first and per-argument notes after. The stray quoting/blank line after the args block is cosmetic waste but nothing substantive is bloated.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and most parameters are covered. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations it omits prerequisites (active document, instance selection) and failure modes, which an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is only 25% (just instance), but the description compensates by explaining name, expression, and units with concrete examples like "width * 2" and unit values. The instance parameter is documented in the schema itself, so nearly all parameters carry 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?

"Add a new user parameter" gives a specific verb plus resource and is clearly distinguishable from set_parameter/get_parameters in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an active document or connected Inventor instance), and no explicit contrast with set_parameter for modifying an existing parameter. Only the word "new" hints at create-vs-update.

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