Add floor

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds only that thickness is optional, plus a cryptic rule reference (GEN-003, GEO-007) whose behavior impact is unexplained; it does not say whether surf_ids are required for material assignment or what happens to overlapping slabs.

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?

The core sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the trailing "[bulc-mcp rules] GEN-003, GEO-007 — bulc_knowledge_search \"<id>\"" fragment is cryptic overhead that does not clearly help an agent invoke the tool.

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 an 8-parameter geometry-creation tool with no output schema and thin schema coverage, the description omits what is created from surf_ids, whether an id must be unique, and any project-state precondition. It is too sparse to fully guide a correct call.

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 only 38% (6 of 8 parameters undocumented). The description compensates for x_min/x_max/y_min/y_max and thickness, but leaves id, z, and especially surf_ids — likely the most consequential parameter — completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource ("add a floor slab") and names the two key inputs (x/y range, thickness), so it is distinguishable from generic siblings like shape_add_box or add_obstacle. It is not fully differentiated from those overlapping geometry-creation siblings, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Calling itself a "convenience tool" hints that an alternative exists but never names it (e.g., add_obstacle or shape_add_box) or states when this should be preferred over them. There is also no mention of prerequisites such as an open project or document.

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