Fix docstrings naming parameters that are not in the signature

[karpovantonme]

Description

Fixes #1002.

Four docstrings name a parameter the function does not take. Details and the reasoning for each are in the issue; in short:

• symmetric_difference / symmetric_difference_update document others (plural, "the other collections") but take a single other — the text was copied from difference(*others) above, which really is varargs.
• PaddingNode.append and ListNode.append document node; both signatures are append(self, val, ...).
• Nuclide._parse_fancy_name has two Parameters entries for one argument: a bare identifier, then idenitifer with the letters transposed.
• Surface.update_pointers documents data_cards; the signature is data_inputs, and Material.update_pointers and ThermalScatteringLaw.update_pointers already document it that way.

Docstrings only — no code, no behaviour change, so there is nothing for a test to assert. Say the word if you would rather have it covered some other way.

---

General Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• The code follows the standards outlined in the development documentation.
• I have formatted my code with black version 25 or 26.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if applicable) — not applicable, docstrings only.

---

LLM Disclosure

1. Are you?

   • A human user
   • A large language model (LLM), including ones acting on behalf of a human

2. Were any large language models (LLM or "AI") used in to generate any of this code?

• Yes
  • Model(s) used: Claude Opus (Claude Code)
• No

The four were found by comparing every NumPy-style Parameters block in the package against the actual signature, then reading each hit to rule out decorators, **kwargs and the property-setter documentation style used in fill.py and importance.py (those two are deliberate and were left alone).

Documentation Checklist

• I have documented all added classes and methods.
• I have added type hints to all functions as needed.
• I have marked all changes with the .. versionchanged:: or .. versionadded:: directives — not applicable, no API change.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://montepy--1003.org.readthedocs.build/en/1003/

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://montepy--1003.org.readthedocs.build/en/1003/

[MicahGale]

The changes look good for the most part. Though, @karpovantonme why did you remove your disclosure of using Claude code?

[karpovantonme]

Sorry — that was carelessness with the form on my part, not an attempt to hide anything. I changed the first box to say I'm a human, since I am the one submitting this and standing behind it, and flipped the second one in the same edit without thinking it through. I've put it back.

To be explicit: yes, Claude Code was used. It ran the sweep that compares every numpydoc Parameters block in the package against the actual signature, and it wrote the patch. I read the diff before submitting and can explain each of the four changes — including why fill.py and importance.py are not in it, since documenting the setter's parameter in the property's docstring is deliberate there and Sphinx renders it from the getter.

[tjlaboss]

The changelog test failure can be ignored in this case.

[MicahGale]

Looks good. I agree we can ignore the changelog requirement. Thanks @karpovantonme!