hvac_remove_ductRemove a duct connection from an HVAC smoke-control model by ID, clearing outdated links before rerunning fire-simulation analyses.
Remove a duct connection by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Duct 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 and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'by ID' and says nothing about side effects, such as whether removing a duct orphans connected nodes or cascades to downstream network elements.
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?
One short sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter delete, though it is perhaps too terse to carry much informational weight.
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 remove-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and an explicit destructiveHint, the description is minimally sufficient. It leaves minor gaps around side effects and the broader HVAC workflow, but the annotations and schema carry most of the load.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces 'by ID' but adds no format, validation, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (duct connection) with the lookup key (ID). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hvac_add_duct and hvac_update_duct, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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 rather than hvac_update_duct, hvac_remove_node, or the higher-level hvac_apply_to_fds workflow, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.