parameter

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with this by noting deletion is 'the inverse of setting one' and that it matches by name so a just-added parameter can be removed even after reformatting. It also explicitly states that value is required when name is specified, adding behavioral detail beyond schema.

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 concise: two sentences that cover the core functionality and a key usage pattern. It front-loads the main purpose and includes an important caveat about deletion. No wasted words.

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?

With high schema coverage (100%), a clear description, and annotations, the tool is well-documented. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Slight deduction for not mentioning file path extension restrictions (though schema does) and not clarifying behavior when no parameters are read.

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 100%, but the description adds clarity on how name, value, and delete interact: value is required when name is specified, delete is mutually exclusive with value, and name can be omitted to read all params. This goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Read, write, or delete .PARAM directive values in a circuit file.' It specifies the resource (.PARAM directive values in a circuit file) and actions (read, write, delete), making it distinct from siblings that deal with components, netlists, or simulations.

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 clearly explains that setting a parameter is the inverse of deleting it, and gives an example for deletion ('Pass delete=true with name to remove a parameter'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_directive or set_component_value, though sibling names suggest some overlap.

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