Evac add agent

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-open-world write with destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the rule reference (EVAC-001 -> bulc_knowledge_search), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about what happens on repeated calls, whether the agent needs an existing evac setup, or the units/scoping of position beyond the schema.

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 lines with the action front-loaded and no padding. The embedded rule pointer is compact, though its terse quoting ('"<id>"') is slightly cryptic and could be mistaken for a parameter.

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?

With no output schema the description need not explain returns, and annotations cover the mutation profile while the schema fully documents parameters. What is missing is the operational context: whether an evacuation setup must pre-exist, and how this differs from the batch/waypoint/stair adders. Adequate but with clear gaps for a write tool in a crowded evac family.

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 (x, y, maxSpeed, floorIndex, desiredSpeed) carries its own units and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds 'at a specific position', which does not extend the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 an evacuation agent) plus the scoping detail 'at a specific position', which distinguishes it from the coordinate-free siblings like evac_update_setup or evac_list_summary. It stops short of explicitly naming the closest alternatives (evac_add_agents_batch, evac_add_waypoint), so the agent must infer the single-vs-batch split.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus evac_add_agents_batch, evac_add_stair, or evac_add_waypoint, and no prerequisites (e.g. that an evacuation setup must exist first). The '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001' pointer is a compliance pointer, not usage guidance for this tool.

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