evac_update_setupUpdate evacuation simulation settings (model, simulation time, time step) for BULC MCP fire-simulation workflows.
Update evacuation simulation settings (model, time, timestep)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model: CollisionFreeSpeed | SocialForce | GeneralizedCentrifugal | CollisionFreeSpeedV2 | |
| timeStep | No | Time step (s) | |
| simulationTime | No | Total simulation time (s) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive update, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of settings but does not disclose partial-update behavior, whether omitted fields are preserved, or any required preconditions.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple settings-update 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?
Given the simple three-parameter schema and existing annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits whether all parameters are optional and what happens on an empty call, which matters for a partial-update tool with no required fields.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters, including valid model values and units for timeStep and simulationTime. The description merely lists them informally and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update evacuation simulation settings', and names the settings (model, time, timestep). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like evac_update_agent or evac_update_journey, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.
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 tool versus alternatives such as set_run_options or set_simulation_mode, nor any preconditions (e.g., simulation must be stopped). The description only restates what can be updated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.