remove_deviceDelete one device from a BULC fire-simulation model using its ID or internal uid; if duplicate IDs exist, only the first matching device is removed.
Remove a single device by ID (or internal uid). With duplicate IDs, removes only the first match. [bulc-mcp rules] DEVC-001, DEVC-003, DEVC-004 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device ID (or uid) 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, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the duplicate-ID behavior (only the first match is removed), which concretely explains the non-idempotent mutation.
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 core action in one sentence followed by the duplicate-ID caveat. The trailing bulc rule fragment is terse but cryptic, slightly hurting readability.
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 one-parameter removal tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could still say whether removal is reversible or what happens if the ID is not found, but nothing critical 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% and the single parameter already documents 'Device ID (or uid) to remove.' The description's mention of ID/uid merely restates the schema, 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a single device by ID (or internal uid).' An agent can tell this apart from add_device, update_device and list_devices, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus update_device or the other remove_* siblings. The bulc rule reference (DEVC-001/003/004) implies a prerequisite check, but it is cryptic and never states the condition that selects this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.