Evac update stair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the bare purpose: it does not say whether unspecified properties are left untouched (partial update), whether floor indices are validated, or whether the geometry mutation can invalidate waypoints/journeys that reference this stair.

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 single purpose sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, which is good. However, the bracketed rules fragment immediately after it is cryptic and not clearly actionable, which harms the otherwise clean 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?

For a mutation tool with full annotation coverage, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the minimum an agent needs is arguably present. What is missing is meaningful context: partial-update semantics, ID discovery (e.g. evac_list_summary), and the intent behind the EVAC-001 rule pointer.

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 units documented for every coordinate ('New stair start X (m)', 'New max simultaneous users'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra semantics such as which fields are optional or how x1/y1/x2/y2 interrelate, so the baseline 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Update properties of an existing staircase'), which distinguishes it from evac_add_stair and evac_remove_stair by the name alone. It stops short of describing what kind of properties or the relationship to sibling update tools (evac_update_journey, evac_update_agent), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the stair must already exist, how to obtain a valid stair ID), and no exclusion relative to evac_add_stair. The appended '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment hints at a rule lookup but never says when or why the agent should perform it, so it reads as noise rather than guidance.

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