parameter_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the atomic transaction model ("a Fusion error on any item removes the ones already created"), the up-front name validation (pattern, existence, duplicates), and the exact return shape including a warnings array for newly-warning features.

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 with the core action and ordering constraint, followed by the atomicity caveat, the expression/unit rules, the return value, and a closing example. Each block is short and additive; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers the mutation semantics, failure behavior, unit handling, return payload, and a runnable example. For a single-array-parameter tool this is essentially everything an agent needs before calling it.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that `expression` accepts either a Fusion expression string or a bare number interpreted in `unit`, with the worked mapping 40 -> "40 mm" and the deg/"" unit conventions. The `comment` field and the minItems/maxItems bounds are never mentioned, leaving a small gap.

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 ("Create user parameters") plus a scope qualifier ("in order"). It does not explicitly name a sibling such as parameter_update or parameter_delete, but the creation semantics are unambiguous enough that an agent can distinguish it from the other parameter_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules: later parameters may reference earlier ones, all-or-nothing validation, and which unit to pick for angles versus unitless counts. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. "use parameter_update to change an existing parameter"), so the boundary with siblings is implied rather than asserted.

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