Hvac remove node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lowered, but the description earns credit by disclosing the cascade scope — deleting connected ducts and equipment — which annotations do not convey. It does not state what happens if the node ID is invalid, but the key destructive side effect is surfaced.

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 — verb, resource, and cascade all in one line. The appended rules-pointer line is noise that muddies an otherwise clean, appropriately sized description.

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 destructive removal with no output schema, the cascade disclosure covers the most decision-relevant behavior. It is silent on failure modes (unknown ID), whether dependent equipment references are cleaned up, and the confusing EVAC-001 rule line leaves a gap in self-containedness.

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%; the single id parameter is documented as "Node ID to remove" in the schema itself. The description adds no format, prefix, or lookup guidance beyond that, 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 and resource ("Remove an HVAC node") and adds scope detail that distinguishes it from siblings like hvac_remove_duct or hvac_remove_supply_diffuser: it cascades to connected ducts and equipment. Clear and specific, though it never names an alternative tool directly.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus editing/updating a node, or any prerequisite or warning about the cascade. The trailing "[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001 — bulc_knowledge_search" line is an unexplained, mis-namespaced pointer that provides no usable invocation guidance.

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