Hvac add exhaust grille

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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful precondition that the parent exhaust node must already exist, but says nothing about failure behavior, whether repeated adds duplicate grilles (non-idempotent), or what the rule reference actually enforces.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded, with the parent-node constraint in the first clause. The trailing bracketed rule citation is opaque and slightly clutter, but overall it is appropriately sized for a three-parameter mutation.

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 simple add operation with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present, and no output schema is needed. However, the meaning of the 'bulc-mcp rules HVAC-001' reference and the consequences of adding a grille (e.g., effect on airflow balance, non-idempotency) are left unexplained.

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 nodeId, airflowCFM (default 200), and grilleType (with its four allowed values) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ordering, or default details beyond that, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Add an exhaust grille') plus a required precondition ('to an existing exhaust node'), which naturally separates it from hvac_add_supply_diffuser and hvac_update_exhaust_grille. It never names a sibling or alternative explicitly, so it stays at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 choose this tool versus hvac_update_exhaust_grille, hvac_add_duct, or hvac_add_supply_diffuser. The bracketed 'bulc-mcp rules HVAC-001 — bulc_knowledge_search' note hints that a rule lookup is expected first, but it is cryptic and never states the condition or the required ordering in plain terms.

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