add_m_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the create-or-update semantics, the metadata attachment, and the effect of allowedValues. However, it doesn't mention return behavior, error conditions, or side effects beyond the parameter entry itself, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action. No filler or redundant wording; every clause adds value.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key behavioral aspects, and parameter constraints. It misses details like return values or prerequisites, but these are less critical given the tool's relatively low complexity and the schema's coverage.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight meaning by explaining type options and allowedValues as a 'fixed list', but it doesn't add much beyond the schema descriptions. sessionId remains undocumented in both schema and description, though it's likely a common context.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create (or update) a Power Query parameter' with specific details about the metadata it carries (IsParameterQuery). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_shared_expression or define_udf by referencing the 'Manage Parameters entry' and the specific metadata flag.

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 useful context on parameter types and the allowedValues restriction, implicitly signaling when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving some room for ambiguity among similar shared-expression tools.

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