Place furniture

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses real behavior: doors/windows auto-snap to the nearest wall and create a wall opening, fire-data items become fire sources automatically, and changes reflect to the 2D/3D view immediately. It also ties in bulc rule IDs (EVAC-002, FIRE-001, FIRE-002) that can be looked up. It stops short of stating side effects on existing geometry or permissions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavioral details in descending importance. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] ... bulc_knowledge_search' line is dense but compact and actionable. No wasted prose, though the rules line is terse enough to be ambiguous.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the notable behavioral cases (snapping, fire-source promotion, live view updates) that an agent needs. It would be stronger if it pointed to list_furniture_catalog for obtaining furniture_id and clarified overlap with add_door/add_window, but it is largely complete.

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 the schema already documents x/y/z, furniture_id, and as_fire_source, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only marginal meaning by noting that fire-data items are placed as fire sources automatically, which loosely relates to as_fire_source, but it adds no format or unit detail beyond the schema.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Place a furniture/item at a position.' An agent can immediately tell this places catalog items. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the many placement siblings (add_door, add_window, add_obstacle), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 description implies usage via the special cases it describes (doors/windows category auto-snap, fire items become fire sources), which tells an agent this tool is the entry point for catalog furniture. But it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing against siblings like add_door/add_window, which overlap with the doors_windows behavior described here.

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