Manage custom parameters

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

The description significantly enriches the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=true) with concrete behavioral details: transactional rollback to prior snapshot, EXPORT returning an error without mutation, reversible EXPRESSION/BIND, protected built-ins, and no raw Python fallback. These are not present in structured data and give agents crucial expectations beyond generic mutation hints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by compact behavioral details. It is reasonably concise for the complexity, though some clauses like 'no raw Python or /api/exec fallback is used' and 'Legacy page+params calls remain valid' are peripheral and could be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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?

The tool is complex with nested operations and multiple parameters. The description covers transactionality, auth, supported types, and key safety behaviors, which is substantial. However, it does not explain the response format (no output schema exists) nor dive into the exact semantics of each operation action, leaving some gaps for such a multi-faceted tool. Overall, quite complete but not exhaustive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides meaningful details on supported types and mode behavior (EXPRESSION/BIND reversible, EXPORT held), but does not explain the idempotency_key purpose, the precise semantics of operation actions (e.g., sort_page expects an order array), or the role of fields like menu_names vs menu_labels. Partial compensation, not fully sufficient.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Transactionally add, edit, delete, sort, and organize a COMP's custom parameters.' It also lists supported types and the authenticated route, distinguishing it from sibling parameter tools like update_td_node_parameters which target existing parameters. The scope is unambiguous.

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 implies use for managing custom parameters and notes that legacy page+params calls remain valid, offering limited context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like update_td_node_parameters or set_parameter_expression, nor provide when-not-to-use conditions beyond implied protection of built-ins. Only guidance is implied, not explicitly stated.

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