manage_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the 'active document' scope and that 'get' returns all parameters, which is useful mutation context. But it does not say what happens if 'set' targets a nonexistent name, whether 'add' overwrites duplicates, or whether changes are undoable via the transaction sibling.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a tight Args list; nothing is padded or redundant. The docstring formatting is slightly mechanical but each line carries real information for a consumer.

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 not be explained. For a five-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, though, the description should say more about failure modes, persistence, and interaction with the transaction tool. As written it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing on error behavior.

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 only 20% (only 'instance' is documented structurally), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains action values, gives examples for name ("width") and expression ("50 mm", "width * 2"), and restricts units to add with examples (mm, cm, m, deg). The only gap is that 'instance' is not mentioned in the description, though the schema covers it.

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?

Description starts with a concrete verb triple and resource: "Read, change or add parameters of the active document." An agent immediately knows the operation and the target object, and 'parameters' is distinct from siblings like manage_features or manage_constraints. It lacks explicit differentiation from those siblings, keeping it below 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?

The Args block enumerates action values "get" (all), "set", "add", which implies the modes of use and hints that 'get' returns all parameters. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over inspect_model or manage_features, no prerequisites (e.g. a document must be open), and no exclusion conditions.

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