Add bndf

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false, destructiveHint false). The description adds substantial behavior: the GPU engine's 7 supported quantities, the warn-and-fall-back-to-WALL-HEAT-FLUX behavior for unsupported quantities, and the WALL HEAT FLUX vs NET HEAT FLUX portability trap. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 core action and examples, then layers engine caveats in descending order of importance; every sentence carries operational weight. The trailing rule reference ('[bulc-mcp rules] OUT-005 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"') is cryptic filler that slightly blurs the end of an otherwise tight description.

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 3 params, no output schema and only generic annotations, the description covers the important unknowns: valid quantity names, engine compatibility, ID parameter mapping, and the CPU-vs-GPU naming hazard. It does not address what happens on duplicate additions (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or any confirmation/return behavior, leaving a small gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the terse schema text: it enumerates which quantities go with spec_id (MASS FLUX, SURFACE DEPOSITION, MPUA_Z, CPUA_Z, AMPUA_Z) versus part_id (MPUA, CPUA, AMPUA) and constrains quantity to uppercase FDS names.

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 ('Add') plus the exact resource ('animated boundary quantity (&BNDF)') with concrete examples (WALL TEMPERATURE, ADIABATIC SURFACE TEMPERATURE). An agent can immediately distinguish it from list_bndf and remove_bndf without opening a schema.

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 selection rules for the parameters: spec_id for species quantities (with the list of valid names) and part_id for particle quantities. It also states the engine-constraint condition ('Any other quantity needs CPU FDS'). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, but for a create-style tool the guidance present is strong.

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