Hvac update duct

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'existing', which usefully signals that the id must reference a pre-existing duct, but it says nothing about partial-update semantics or what happens to unspecified fields.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise given the tool's complexity.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits important context: whether updates are partial or replace the whole object, and how ductShape (circular | rectangular) governs whether diameter or width/height is meaningful. The annotations cover safety, but the domain logic an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so all six parameters (id, width, height, diameter, material, ductShape) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about optionality or which parameters apply to which duct shape, so the 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?

Clear verb+resource ('Update properties of an existing duct') that identifies the operation precisely and implies the sibling hvac_add_duct is for creation. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the other hvac_update_* siblings (node, supply diffuser, exhaust grille, air handler), so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus hvac_add_duct, hvac_update_node, or hvac_remove_duct, and no prerequisites beyond the implicit 'existing'. The agent must infer the calling context 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.