Hvac add node

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: the label becomes the FDS id after *_apply_to_fds. That downstream identity effect is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs and is not derivable from 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?

The purpose sentence is correctly front-loaded, but the description is cluttered with bracketed rule tags ('[bulc-mcp]', '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, GEN-021') and an embedded tool-call instruction that reads as machine-generated noise. The useful content survives, but it is not cleanly structured.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, node types, and labeling convention but omits prerequisites, whether the node must belong to an existing network, and what a successful call returns. Nothing is actively misleading, but a few gaps remain against the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for the 'label' parameter beyond the schema's terse 'Optional label' — uniqueness convention (H1, H2, EX1) and its role as the eventual FDS id. Positional parameters add nothing, which is fine since the schema documents them fully.

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+resource ('Add an HVAC node') and enumerates the four node types it accepts, which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not, however, disambiguate itself from the highly overlapping siblings hvac_add_supply_diffuser and hvac_add_exhaust_grille, which create the same node types this tool lists.

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?

The description implies usage through operational notes (give terminals a unique label, consult rules GEN-021/EVAC-001), which is useful context. It never states explicitly when to use this tool versus the type-specific hvac_add_* siblings, so tool selection is left to inference.

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