Hvac update supply diffuser

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable mutation. The description adds only the word 'existing', implying the diffuser must already exist, but says nothing about partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved), required permissions, or side effects on connected ducts/nodes.

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 does the work with no padding. The trailing bracketed rule tag is tersely formatted and slightly cryptic, but it is short and arguably useful for compliance lookup.

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 four-parameter, non-destructive update with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. It still omits partial-update behavior, error/not-found handling, and any mention of the diffuser's linkage to the duct network, which matter for a network-update tool with no output schema.

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% with all four parameters (id, airflowCFM, supplyTempC, diffuserType) documented, including units and the diffuserType value set, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — in particular it never states that unspecified properties are left unchanged, which is the one semantic detail the schema cannot convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update properties of an existing supply diffuser'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling resources like hvac_update_duct, hvac_update_node, or hvac_update_exhaust_grille. It stops short of explaining how it relates to the add/remove variants or what 'properties' concretely means, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus hvac_add_supply_diffuser, hvac_update_duct, or the generic update tools. The bracketed rule citation (HVAC-001, HVAC-003 pointing at bulc_knowledge_search) is a compliance reference, not usage guidance, and is too cryptic to route an agent reliably.

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