evac_update_waypointUpdate an existing evacuation waypoint's coordinates, attraction radius, floor, or waiting time in a BULC MCP fire-simulation model.
Update properties of an existing waypoint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | New X position (m) | |
| y | No | New Y position (m) | |
| id | Yes | Waypoint ID | |
| radius | No | New attraction radius (m) | |
| floorIndex | No | New floor index | |
| waitingTime | No | New waiting 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and repeat-call profile. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not explain partial-update semantics, behavior on an unknown id, or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.
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 filler, opening with the verb. It is efficient, though its brevity arguably reflects underspecification rather than deliberate conciseness.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the fields. Still missing is whether omitted fields are left unchanged and what happens on an invalid id, which an agent needs to call this correctly.
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 each of the six parameters (x, y, radius, floorIndex, waitingTime, id) is already documented with units in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (existing waypoint), which is clear enough to distinguish it from evac_add_waypoint and evac_remove_waypoint by name. However, it does not explicitly reference those siblings or clarify its scope against them.
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, and no mention of alternatives such as evac_add_waypoint or evac_remove_waypoint. The agent must infer that this is the mutation path for an already-existing waypoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.