Evac remove stair

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that, but the malformed reference to EVAC-001 / bulc_knowledge_search hints at an external validation step without explaining it, which is weak added value.

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 efficiently front-loaded, but the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is unexplained, appears malformed, and adds 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 simple destructive single-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and destructiveHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any note about what gets removed, side effects on dependent journeys/agents, or how to recover (undo), which would help for a destructive operation.

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% and the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter ('Stair ID to remove'), so the description matches rather than adds. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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+resource ('Remove a staircase by ID'), which is clear and directly distinguishable from siblings like evac_add_stair and evac_update_stair. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the purpose 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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of required state (e.g., staircase must exist, simulation must be stopped). The injected '[bulc-mcp rules]' line references an external rule ID but does not function as usable usage guidance.

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