Remove obstacle

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 by structured data. The description adds no context beyond that: it doesn't say what happens to dependent geometry, whether the removal is reversible/undoable, or what an agent should do if the ID is missing.

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 tight and front-loaded, but the appended '[bulc-mcp rules] GEN-003 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is unexplained boilerplate that consumes space without clarifying the tool's use.

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 destructive delete with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any note about cascading effects on related objects or failure behavior, which would be the useful additions here.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's 'by ID' phrasing is redundant. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an obstacle by ID') that is immediately distinguishable from sibling reads like list_obstacles. It does not, however, differentiate itself from related mutators such as update_obstacle, transform_obstacle, or remove_geom.

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 guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as update_obstacle or transform_obstacle when the intent is modification rather than deletion. The cryptic '[bulc-mcp rules] GEN-003' line is not actionable usage guidance.

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