Evac update agent

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether this is a partial or full replacement update, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what validation applies to values like mass or speed. For a mutation tool this is a real gap.

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 first sentence is appropriately short and front-loaded, but the second line — a dangling '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment — is extraneous and reads like a leaked instruction rather than documentation. That noise costs it points on size and structure.

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?

The schema fully documents all seven parameters and the annotations carry the safety profile, so an agent can invoke the tool. However, the description leaves open whether the update is partial or replacing, and the stray rule line adds confusion rather than completeness. Adequate but with clear remaining gaps.

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 (x, y, id, mass, maxSpeed, floorIndex, desiredSpeed) is already documented with units in the schema. The description adds no syntax, range, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'Update properties of an existing evacuation agent' — which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like evac_add_agent and evac_remove_agent. It does not enumerate which properties are updatable, but the core purpose is unambiguous. The trailing rule-reference line adds no clarity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. use evac_add_agent for new agents, evac_remove_agent to delete). Usage is only implied by the word 'existing'. An agent must infer everything about context from the tool name.

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