Evac add journey

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral rules: the EXIT stage auto-routes to the nearest exit, floors are auto-joined by stairs, and stairs must not be modeled as stages. This goes meaningfully beyond annotations, though nothing is said about duplicate handling or prerequisites.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the tricky rules. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-006, EVAC-007' reference is a little opaque but directs the agent to enabling documentation, so it earns its place.

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 fully documented parameters, the description supplies the domain rules an agent needs to build a valid journey (ordering, EXIT terminator, no stairs). Minor gaps around error/duplicate handling remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description compensates for the terse schema by clarifying the semantics of stage types and that targetId is omitted for EXIT and sourced from evac_list_summary for others.

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 ('Create an evacuation journey (route) with ordered stages'), which cleanly separates it from evac_update_journey and evac_remove_journey in the sibling list. An agent knows exactly what object is being created.

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?

Gives concrete construction guidance: where waypoint ids come from (evac_list_summary), how to terminate the route (EXIT stage), and what not to include (stairs). It doesn't explicitly contrast with update/remove siblings, but the create-vs-modify distinction is clear from the name and verb.

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