Save Simulink's logged data to a MAT file

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the idle-simulation prerequisite and the exact file contents (variables: signals, base_workspace, model_workspace, info). It does not address overwrite semantics beyond the schema param, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, then sibling differentiation. The parenthetical variable list is dense but earns its place by describing file output; overall efficient with little waste.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and 100% schema description coverage across 8 params, the description supplies the remaining needed context: idle-simulation requirement and file-content semantics. Complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so every parameter's enum/default semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates workspace content grouping but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('write what Simulink logged ... to a MAT file') and clarifies scope against the sibling save tools by contrasting with the .erg result file ('The result file (.erg) holds CarMaker's quantities; this holds the Simulink side'). An agent can distinguish this from cm_model_save and cm_dva_write without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear triggering context ('After a CarMaker for Simulink run') and a prerequisite ('Requires an idle simulation'). It does not name an explicit alternative tool to use instead when the simulation is not idle, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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