flexsim_set_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the dual backend (in-window script write vs. controller.setParameter), the exact mutation target (Model.parameters.<name>), and error behavior on missing parameters. It still omits whether the change is persisted or reversible, so not a 5.

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-loads the purpose, then backend behavior, then a terse Args block. Every sentence adds information; minor redundancy between the parenthetical error note and the Args block keeps it just shy 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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, the description covers the mutation target, error semantics, and creation boundary, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The remaining gap is persistence/reversibility behavior, which is not stated.

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% and the 'value' property has no declared type, so the description must compensate. It does: 'name' is qualified as defined in the model, and 'value' is documented as number or string, filling a real gap the schema leaves open.

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) and resource (model parameter defined in the model's Parameter Tables), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like flexsim_get_parameter and flexsim_ensure_parameter. An agent can tell immediately which parameter tool to pick.

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 informs the agent that a missing window parameter is an error and routes it to flexsim_ensure_parameter, plus notes 'this tool never creates'. This is a clear precondition and alternative, though it doesn't cover when to prefer this over, say, flexsim_set_node_value for other model state.

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