Hvac apply to fds

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the replacement semantics ("Re-running replaces the previous ones"), the data-source fallback chain, and the rule IDs governing it. That answers the main agent question—does re-running duplicate HVAC obstacles?—which annotations alone do not. It is worth noting the replace-on-rerun behavior sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, though not enough for a hard contradiction since the flow values themselves can change between runs.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the action and then the mechanism, followed by the flow-source and re-run caveats—each clause carries information. The trailing rules line ([bulc-mcp rules] HVAC-001, GEN-021, HVAC-003 with the bulc_knowledge_search hint) is slightly noisy bookkeeping but is operationally usable rather than filler.

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 zero-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is created, where the flow values come from, and what re-running does—the essentials needed to invoke it correctly. It does not say what happens if no diffusers/grilles exist or how failures surface, but those are secondary gaps rather than blockers.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty schema already conveys. No parameter detail is omitted because none exists.

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 ("Apply the HVAC duct network to the FDS model") and describes the concrete transformation: each supply_diffuser/exhaust_grille becomes a small HVAC obstacle whose bottom face blows or sucks terminal airflow. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hvac_run_calc (computation) and hvac_add_supply_diffuser (authoring), which an agent could otherwise confuse with it.

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?

Gives ordering context by naming the upstream dependency: flow comes from hvac_run_calc "when available, otherwise the design CFM," so the agent knows a prior calc is preferred but not mandatory. It does not state when not to use it, nor point at alternatives such as spr_apply_to_fds for the sprinkler analogue, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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