parameter_update

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses transactional atomicity (all changes roll back if any fail or put a timeline feature into error state), the exact failure contract (FUSION_API_ERROR with details.failed_features), and the cascading side effect that renaming rewrites expressions referencing the parameter. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs before attempting a mutation.

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 capability statement is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the two pieces of behaviorally critical information (atomicity/error contract, rename cascade), the return shape, and a compact example. Every sentence carries distinct load with no restatement of the name.

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 output schema exists, and the description supplies the return shape inline (parameters plus warnings). No annotations exist, and the description supplies the failure and rollback semantics instead. For a single-array-argument mutation tool, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret both success and failure.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate; it names the four mutable fields (expression, name, comment, favourite flag) and demonstrates the nested object form with parameter_update(parameters=[{...}]). It also explains that renaming updates dependent expressions, which the schema does not. Gaps remain around the minItems 1 / maxItems 100 batch limits and whether omitted/null fields mean 'leave unchanged'.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: change expression, name, comment or favourite flag of user and model parameters, with a concrete example of driving an extrude via `d1`. The scope is unambiguous against parameter_create/parameter_delete/parameter_list by name alone, but the description never explicitly distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling timeline_set_model_parameter.

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?

Usage is implied through the example and the 'at least one field besides name' semantics carried by the schema, so an agent can infer this is for modifying existing parameters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. must the document be active?), and no routing away from timeline_set_model_parameter.

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