Add vent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the rule-id provenance pointer, which is genuinely extra behavioral context, but it omits what happens on a duplicate id, whether surf_id must reference an existing surface, and whether mass_flux and dynamic_pressure are mutually exclusive.

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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a compact rule-reference line. Nothing is padded, though the bracketed rule pointer is terse enough to be slightly 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?

For a 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations gap, the description is minimally adequate but leaves out prerequisites (does surf_id need to exist?), the relationship between mass_flux and dynamic_pressure, and the effect of adding a vent on the FDS deck.

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 five parameters including mass_flux and dynamic_pressure are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that XB defines the vent surface, which is a minor restatement of the schema's '[x1,x2,y1,y2,z1,z2]' hint. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 vent (boundary patch)') and clarifies that XB defines the vent surface, which distinguishes it from sibling mutators like add_bndf and add_surface. Sibling differentiation is implicit (contrast with list_vents/update_vent is obvious from the verb), but it does not explicitly say what makes a vent different from a generic 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?

The bulc rule references (EVAC-002, VENT-002, VENT-004) plus the bulc_knowledge_search pointer imply the agent should consult rules before adding a vent, which is useful procedural context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs update_vent, remove_vent, or add_bndf guidance, so usage is only implied.

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