Set a Simulink parameter

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds two facts not in the structured data: the operation is logged, and cm_revert_all restores the old value. That reversibility/audit context is genuinely valuable for a mutation tool. It does not state permission requirements or what happens on invalid paths/params.

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?

Two telegraphic fragments with zero filler, and the core action plus the restore hint are front-loaded. The extreme terseness borders on cryptic for 'set_param' as a verb, keeping it just short of a 5.

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, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the prerequisite (model loaded) and the recovery path (cm_revert_all). It is essentially complete for the call decision, missing only edge-case behavior such as failure on nonexistent parameters.

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 path, param, value, and save are all documented in the schema itself; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no param-level detail such as value typing or save-side effects beyond what the schema already says.

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 (set_param) and resource (loaded Simulink model or block), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from cm_model_get and the cm_results/cm_workspace read tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with near-neighbors like cm_set_workspace_var or cm_output_quantities_edit, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

The phrase 'on a loaded Simulink model or block' implies the prerequisite that the model must already be loaded, and it names cm_revert_all as the undo route. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing against the many sibling mutation tools, so usage is only implied.

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