Remove hole

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only a cryptic rule-code reference (EVAC-002, GEO-004) that is never explained; it does not state permissions required, cascade effects on the parent obstacle, or reversibility beyond what annotations imply.

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 one front-loaded line with no waste. The appended bracketed rule-code string is terse but cryptic rather than explanatory, marginally weakening structure.

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 mutation with an unclear relationship to parent geometry, the description says nothing about preconditions, what else changes when a hole is removed, or whether the operation is recoverable. Annotations cover the safety profile but not the operational consequences, leaving a real gap.

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 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Hole ID to remove'. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes that, adding no format or lookup guidance, 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 (remove) and resource (hole) with the keying parameter (by ID), which inherently distinguishes it from sibling add_hole and update_hole. It does not, however, explicitly name any alternative or scope of effect.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The bracketed '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-002, GEO-004' line is an opaque internal reference, not actionable guidance for choosing this tool or for precondition checks.

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