gh_set_parameter

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

The description only restates that a value is pushed into a parameter, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false but adds little. It does not disclose whether the parameter is replaced or appended, whether recomputation is triggered, or what happens on invalid typed input.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The action verb is front-loaded and the resource is clearly stated, making it easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too thin for an agent to safely invoke this tool. It omits how to identify the component, how to name/select the parameter input, and how the typed value maps to Grasshopper data.

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 0% at the top level, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the role of component_id, how input selects a parameter, or how the GhParameterValue discriminated union should be constructed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Push') and a specific resource ('a component parameter'), making the core action clear. It broadly distinguishes itself from getter siblings like gh_get_parameter, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gh_connect_components, gh_set_slider, or gh_get_parameter. An agent gets no explicit context about prerequisites or conditions that would route it to this tool.

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