create_spare_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses upsert semantics (existing labels/defaults/ranges updated, current value and keyframes preserved) and a refusal rule ('a type change on an existing parameter is refused'). It omits auth/permission requirements and any error surface beyond the type-change case.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, behavioral caveats follow, and Args are itemized. Slightly verbose in restating types, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, upsert/refusal behavior, and all parameter semantics. Remaining gaps (error handling beyond type change, permissions) are minor.

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 0%, yet the description documents every parameter: node_path, the nested parameters dict keys and allowed parm_type values, folder_name's wrapping behavior, and folder_type's three styles. This more than compensates for the empty schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Batch-create multiple spare parameters in one call, optionally in a folder tab.' The word 'Batch' immediately distinguishes it from the singular sibling create_spare_parameter, and no schema inspection is needed to know what it does.

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 batch framing gives clear context for choosing this over create_spare_parameter, and the upsert note ('a name that already exists is updated in place') tells the agent when re-running is safe. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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