set_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, yet it says nothing about whether the named parameter must exist, what happens on an unknown name, whether units are validated, or whether a model rebuild is triggered. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage these are significant undisclosed traits.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in a single sentence and the argument notes are short and example-driven. The docstring scaffolding ('Args:') is slightly verbose but nothing is wasted.

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, but the definition still omits critical context: whether the parameter must pre-exist versus add_parameter, error behavior, unit handling, and the optional instance selector. For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, that is a real gap.

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 33%, with just the optional 'instance' parameter documented in the schema itself. The description partly compensates by illustrating both 'name' ('d0', 'width') and 'expression' ('50 mm', 'd0 * 2'), which usefully conveys that expressions and units are accepted, but it never explains name resolution or the instance argument's relationship to list_instances.

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 ('Set a parameter value by name'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling add_parameter tool, leaving the agent to infer whether this creates or only modifies existing parameters.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions add_parameter or get_parameters as alternatives. The examples show value syntax but not the conditions or preconditions (e.g. whether the parameter must already exist) under which this tool should be chosen.

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