Add smoke detector

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: the detector is physically instantiated as an obstacle with an FDS override, and it emits DEVC+PROP namelists into the FDS deck. A caveat would help (e.g. that calling twice with the same id is not idempotent), but the extra context is substantive.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: what it does, then what it produces. The bracketed rules tag is cryptic but compact and does point to a concrete follow-up 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the generated FDS output and a rule lookup path, which is adequate. It still omits whether an open project is required and what the tool returns on success, gaps that matter for an 8-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% and every parameter including the alpha/beta defaults is documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about coordinate defaults (z = ceiling height) or the id naming convention beyond what the schema already says.

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 smoke detector') and clarifies the implementation ('as a small obstacle with FDS override') plus the side effect ('Generates DEVC+PROP in FDS output'). This implicitly distinguishes it from add_heat_detector, add_thermocouple, and add_device, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Convenience:' signals it is a shortcut over generic device/obstacle creation, and the rule tag points the agent at bulc_knowledge_search for DEVC-001/DEVC-009. However there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over add_device or add_heat_detector, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether it is safe alongside add_obstacle).

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