Evac add agents batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that agents are distributed over a rectangle; it says nothing about distribution method (random vs. grid), whether existing agents are preserved, units/defaults for speed, or any auth/permission needs.

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?

The core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, EVAC-005 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' line is template-like boilerplate with an unresolved placeholder, adding structural noise rather than value.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 7 parameters, the description omits key facts an agent needs: how agents are distributed, how count interacts with the area, whether repeated calls accumulate, and default behaviors. The purpose is stated but the definition is not complete enough to call confidently.

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 every parameter (xMin/xMax/yMin/yMax/count/floorIndex/desiredSpeed) is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's 'rectangular area' phrasing loosely reinforces the min/max bounds but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('evacuation agents'), scope ('multiple') and distribution shape ('rectangular area'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-agent sibling evac_add_agent. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives like evac_add_agent or evac_update_agent. The EVAC-001/EVAC-005 rule pointer hints that a bulk-knowledge lookup may apply, but it never states the conditions under which this tool should be chosen.

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