Add heat detector

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

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description meaningfully adds *what* gets written — a small obstacle plus DEVC and PROP namelists in the FDS output — which is genuine behavioral context beyond the safety hints. It does not cover repeat-call effects or permissions, but for a local project mutation this is solid.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the effect (convenience detector) precedes the FDS-emission detail, and the bulc rule pointer is compact. Every clause earns its place, though the rules line is somewhat cryptic without context.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not say what the call returns or how the created DEVC/PROP can be located afterward. Annotations carry the safety profile and the FDS-emission sentence covers the main side effect, leaving it adequate but not fully complete for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 all six parameters (x/y/z, id, rti, activation_temp) with units and defaults. The description adds no positional or value syntax beyond the schema, so 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 heat detector') and adds real scope detail — it is created as a small obstacle and emits DEVC+PROP in FDS output. This distinguishes it from the generic add_device sibling without requiring the schema to be opened, though it stops short of naming the alternatives.

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?

The word 'Convenience:' implies this is a shortcut over the generic add_device path, which gives an agent an implicit sense of when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative, so selection still requires inference.

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