Hvac update node

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a cryptic rule-citation string and says nothing about which fields are optional at runtime, whether unspecified properties are preserved, or what validation/authorization is required before mutating a node.

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 short and front-loaded, which is good, but the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, GEN-021, HVAC-002 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is noisy, unexplained boilerplate that consumes attention without conveying clear instructions.

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 with full schema documentation, annotations covering safety/idempotency, and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It still omits update semantics (partial vs full replacement) and any explanation of the rule-lookup requirement it references.

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% (id as 'Node ID', x/y/z positions, type with enumerated values, label), so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description adds no per-parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema is fully documented.

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 ('Update properties of an existing HVAC node'), so the operation itself is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings like hvac_update_duct, hvac_update_supply_diffuser, or hvac_update_air_handler, all of which share the same verb pattern.

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?

The appended '[bulc-mcp rules] ... bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' block implies the agent should look up compliance rules before performing the update, which is a weak precondition hint. It never states when to prefer this tool over hvac_add_node or hvac_remove_node, nor any exclusion or prerequisite conditions.

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