Evac add stair

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only 'connecting two floors' and a pointer to EVAC-001/EVAC-006 compliance rules — no mention of what creation requires, whether it carves an opening, or duplicate-handling, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The trailing rule tag is terse and somewhat cryptic, but it does not pad the definition.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to attempt the call but omits notable context: coordinate frame for the x/y pairs, whether the stair requires a matching opening, and how capacity/width interact with simulation. Annotations cover the safety side, so this remains merely adequate.

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 (coordinates, widthCm default 120, capacity default 20, floor indices) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no coordinate-system, unit, or ordering detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (add) plus resource (staircase) and scope (connecting two floors), which distinguishes it from evac_update_stair and evac_remove_stair in the sibling set. It does not name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus evac_update_stair/evac_remove_stair, and no prerequisites (e.g., floors must already exist). The only routing aid is the machine-oriented '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, EVAC-006' tag, which tells the agent to look up rules but not when this tool is the right choice.

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