Add thermocouple

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the thermocouple is realized as a small obstacle with an FDS override and produces a DEVC in FDS output, which tells the agent about side effects on the model tree.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and the side effect, with no padding. The bracketed rule pointer is terse, though its 'DEVC-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' form is cryptic without surrounding explanation.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations gaps, the description covers the essential mechanics (obstacle + DEVC). It stops short of covering prerequisites (e.g., whether a surface or FDS override context is required) and sibling differentiation, which is the main remaining 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 all six parameters (x/y/z, id, emissivity, bead_diameter) carry their own descriptions including units and defaults. The description mentions no parameter semantics at all, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('add a thermocouple') and goes further by naming the implementation approach ('as a small obstacle with FDS override') and its output effect ('Generates DEVC in FDS output'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from device-adjacent siblings such as add_device, add_heat_detector, or add_smoke_detector, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The DEVC-001 rule pointer to bulc_knowledge_search hints at a compliance step but does not state when this tool should be chosen over add_device or add_heat_detector, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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