Add fire

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false). The description adds that both ramp_points and growth auto-create and link a RAMP, which is useful side-effect context beyond the annotations, but it does not cover failure modes, permission needs, or reversibility.

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 in the first sentence, then explains inputs compactly. The bracketed rules tag is a bit cryptic but functions as a compliance pointer; overall it is well-sized 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?

For a mutation tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly, including the two mutually exclusive curve paths and the RAMP side effect. No output schema exists, and none is implied as missing.

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 schema already documents every parameter, including the RAMP auto-generation on growth and ramp_points. The description mostly restates it (HRRPUA, XB location, curve options), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add a fire source') and immediately clarifies the domain meaning of the key inputs (HRRPUA, XB). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as update_fire or remove_fire, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 conditional guidance for the time-varying case ('pass ramp_points OR growth') and points to the FIRE-001..003 rules via bulc_knowledge_search. However, it never states when to choose add_fire over update_fire/remove_fire, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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