evac_add_waypointAdd a navigation waypoint at X/Y coordinates to build evacuation routes, with optional floor index and attraction radius for path guidance.
Add a navigation waypoint for evacuation routing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X position (m) | |
| y | Yes | Y position (m) | |
| radius | No | Attraction radius (m, default 1.0) | |
| floorIndex | No | Floor index (default 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the add operation — it does not say whether repeated calls create duplicates, whether an identifier is returned for later update/remove, or what the waypoint attaches to.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a mutation tool.
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 write tool with no output schema and a crowded evac sibling family, the description does not explain how the added waypoint is later referenced, ordered among other waypoints, or related to journeys and agents. The schema is complete, but the agent lacks the operational context needed to place a waypoint correctly in the workflow.
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%, with x, y, radius, and floorIndex each documented including units and defaults, so the schema carries parameter semantics fully. The description adds no coordinate-frame or placement meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline 3 for high coverage.
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) and resource (navigation waypoint) with the domain (evacuation routing), so the purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like evac_update_waypoint or evac_remove_waypoint, leaving the agent to infer the create-vs-modify boundary from names alone.
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 guidance on when to use this versus evac_add_journey, evac_update_waypoint, or evac_add_stair, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing evacuation setup or journey. The agent gets a purpose but no routing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.