set_parameter_type

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses the ValueError error behavior for incompatible defaults, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention other side effects, but the tool is a simple mutation. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds an important usage condition. Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.

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 simple mutation tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, allowed types, and error handling. It references a sibling tool for a common prerequisite. However, it does not mention whether an editing transaction is required, which is a minor gap given the context of other tools.

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?

The description adds value for the 'type' parameter by enumerating allowed values, but it does not explain the 'name' and 'path' parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but misses the semantics of how to identify the parameter.

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 verb (Set), the resource (DataType on ReportParameter), and lists the allowed types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_parameter_default_values by mentioning that tool explicitly for handling incompatible defaults.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (setting type), what error to expect (ValueError for incompatible defaults), and what action to take beforehand (use set_parameter_default_values). This clearly differentiates from other parameter-related tools.

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