Hvac add supply diffuser

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

Annotations already declare the profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety burden is largely covered. The description adds the prerequisite that the supply node must already exist, but carries no information on failure behavior, side effects, or the actual content of the referenced 'HVAC-001' rule, which is only a dangling pointer.

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 front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing fragment '[bulc-mcp rules] HVAC-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' is an incomplete, noisy reference with a placeholder that adds confusion rather than value and drags down an otherwise tight one-liner.

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 4-parameter create operation with annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the partially-formed rule pointer and the absence of any statement about what the operation returns or how it fails leave small but real gaps.

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 every parameter (nodeId, airflowCFM, supplyTempC, diffuserType) including defaults and the type list is already documented in the schema. The description adds no supplemental meaning about parameter formats or interactions, 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+resource ('Add a supply diffuser') and its anchor ('to an existing supply node'), which clearly separates it from sibling mutations like hvac_update_supply_diffuser, hvac_remove_supply_diffuser, and hvac_add_exhaust_grille. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings in text.

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 phrase 'to an existing supply node' implicitly establishes a prerequisite (a supply node must exist), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative tool. Usage must be inferred from the resource name.

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