parameter_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the duplicate error and the two use cases (runtime settable and automation target). It doesn't describe side effects like reverting or permissions, but for a creation tool this is acceptable. The primary behavioral trait (error on duplicate) is well communicated.

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 key purpose and error behavior, followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. The structure is 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?

For a relatively simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, duplicate handling, parameter semantics, and downstream usage. It also references related tools for alternative scenarios, making it complete for a typical agent workflow.

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%, so the description must fully explain all 5 parameters. It does: event_target format, name purpose, param_type enumeration, and min/max defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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?

Clear verb 'Add' with resource 'game parameter to an event' explicitly scopes the operation. It distinguishes from parameter_set_initial and parameter_list by noting it errors on duplicates, so agents know this is for creating new parameters, not modifying existing ones.

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 states the error condition (duplicate name) and directs to alternatives (parameter_set_initial/parameter_list) for existing parameters. Also explains the runtime and timeline implications, giving clear context on when this tool is appropriate.

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