remove_bndfRemoves an animated boundary quantity (&BNDF) from a fire simulation by specifying its quantity, with optional spec and part IDs for targeted deletion.
Remove an animated boundary quantity (&BNDF) by QUANTITY (and SPEC_ID/PART_ID when the entry has one).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part_id | No | ||
| spec_id | No | ||
| quantity | Yes | BNDF QUANTITY to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds target type and identifier semantics but does not describe irreversibility, failure behavior, or post-removal effects.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence that states action, target, and identifiers without filler.
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 destructive remove tool with no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, annotations carry the safety profile and the description identifies the target and keys. However, it omits prerequisites, behavior when no matching entry exists, and whether removal is permanent or undoable.
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 coverage is only 33%; only 'quantity' is documented in the schema. The description clarifies that quantity is the primary key and spec_id/part_id are used 'when the entry has one,' which adds useful conditional meaning, but it does not explain value formats or how the identifiers combine.
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 'Remove' and resource 'animated boundary quantity (&BNDF)' with identifying keys. It distinguishes from add_bndf/list_bndf by operation, though it does not name siblings.
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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The parenthetical 'when the entry has one' only conditions optional identifiers, not selection among tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.