Plecs Set

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

With only idempotentHint available, the burden falls mostly on the description, and it does disclose something real: value is interpreted as a PLECS expression string and plain numbers pass through, which tells the agent how to format arguments safely. It says nothing about what happens when the parameter does not exist, whether the setting persists to disk, or what errors look like, so the mutation-side behavior remains opaque.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one substantive detail about value. Nothing is padded, though the compactness here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but path and parameter remain undefined and there is no routing information among 40+ sibling tools. For a three-required-parameter mutating call, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer before invoking it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it explains only one of three parameters. The meaning of path (model file? object path?) and parameter (name? dot-notation?) is left entirely to guesswork, which is a serious omission for a tool whose whole job is targeting a specific parameter.

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?

"Set a parameter" gives a verb and an object, but a bare one: it never says whether the parameter belongs to a model, a block, or a simulation session, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling plecs_set_cosim_server_enabled or its counterpart plecs_get. An agent knows roughly what category of action this is, not what it operates on.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus plecs_set_cosim_server_enabled, nor any mention of plecs_validate or plecs_get as a preceding or companion call. The only hint at usage is the parenthetical about numeric values, which concerns a single argument rather than the decision to call the tool.

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