update_parameters

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing atomicity, that a backup is taken, conflict detection via the passed hash, that all edits validate before any write, and the non-obvious side effect of updating harmonic-balance frequency keys. It also warns that changes are on disk only until reload.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence, then a compact example payload, then the non-obvious consequences. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the mutation semantics are well covered. The gap is the required 'expected_sha256' — the most failure-prone input for a destructive, non-idempotent write — plus 'path' — both left for the agent to infer with zero schema documentation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates partially: it gives the exact edit object shape, a concrete example, and explains that 'parameter' accepts a semantic name or native index (matching the anyOf). But it never explains 'path' or the required 'expected_sha256' beyond the vague phrase 'conflict detection'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Atomically edit component parameters') plus distinguishing scope: backup, conflict detection, and harmonic-balance key propagation. An agent can tell this apart from save_schematic or parameter_sweep without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to inspect_schematic for valid parameter names/indices, and tells it the file must be reloaded in uSimmics afterwards. It does not state when to prefer save_schematic or parameter_sweep instead, so there is no explicit exclusion set.

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