Hvac add duct

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description neither contradicts nor meaningfully extends them. It adds nothing about failure modes (missing/nonexistent node IDs), whether adding a duplicate connection is rejected, or whether the duct is validated against node geometry — real gaps for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action is stated immediately. It is arguably under-sized for a seven-parameter mutation, but there is no wasted text.

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 seven-parameter, non-idempotent create operation with no output schema and no explanatory annotations beyond safety hints, the description omits prerequisites, shape-dependent parameter rules, defaults, and error behavior. It is adequate as a one-line summary but incomplete for correct invocation.

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 seven parameters including units and the material/shape vocabularies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., that width/height apply only to rectangular and diameter only to circular), so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource: connect two HVAC nodes with a duct. An agent can distinguish this create operation from hvac_update_duct and hvac_remove_duct by the verb alone, though the description never explicitly names those siblings or notes the directionality semantics (startNodeId -> endNodeId).

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (do the referenced nodes already have to exist? must they be the same system/level?), and no mention of alternatives like hvac_update_duct for modifying an existing duct. The agent is left to infer all of this.

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