hvac_remove_air_handlerDelete an air handler unit from an HVAC model by its ID, removing it from the smoke-control configuration so system layout and analysis runs stay accurate.
Remove an air handler unit by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Air handler ID to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether attached ducts/diffusers are cascaded, whether removal can be undone, or what happens if the ID is invalid.
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?
A single short sentence with the action and keying parameter front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of being thin, but nothing is wasted.
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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description should explain cascade behavior, reversibility, and prerequisites. It covers none of these, leaving the agent to guess at the consequences of the call.
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?
Only one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the 'id' field. The description's 'by ID' phrasing merely restates it, adding no format, prefix, or lookup details.
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 ('Remove an air handler unit by ID'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from the many adjacent hvac_remove_node / hvac_remove_duct siblings or the hvac_update_air_handler counterpart.
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 use this versus hvac_remove_node or hvac_update_air_handler, no stated prerequisites (e.g., that the handler must exist or that it should be disconnected from ducts first), and no warning that the action is irreversible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.