hvac_remove_exhaust_grilleRemove an exhaust grille from a fire-simulation model by its ID. Use this to delete HVAC smoke-control components during model editing.
Remove an exhaust grille by ID [bulc-mcp rules] HVAC-001 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exhaust grille 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, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb — nothing about what removal cascades to (e.g. connected duct runs in the HVAC network), whether it is reversible, or how failures on an unknown ID are handled.
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 tight and front-loaded, but the trailing rule/reference string adds unresolved noise without conveying actionable meaning, weakening an otherwise two-line definition.
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 single-parameter removal tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition is minimally complete. It is missing the one piece an agent would want — whether the grille is detached from any connected HVAC ducting and what the failure mode is for a stale ID.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Exhaust grille ID to remove'. The description's 'by ID' restates the schema rather than adding format or lookup semantics, 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?
The description names a specific verb+resource ('Remove an exhaust grille by ID') that is distinct from the add/update siblings and from hvac_remove_supply_diffuser, hvac_remove_duct and hvac_remove_node. It is unambiguous on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as hvac_update_exhaust_grille. The appended '[bulc-mcp rules] HVAC-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is unexplained and reads as extraneous injected text rather than usable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.