Remove surface

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing a cascade side effect — objects referencing the surface fall back to INERT — which the annotations do not convey.

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 action is front-loaded in one tight sentence. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] SURF-001 — bulc_knowledge_search' line is compact but cryptically formatted and slightly interrupts flow, keeping it from a full 5.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations that cover safety, the description supplies the essential what and the cascade consequence. It stops short of noting reversibility/undo availability (project_undo/shape_undo exist), which would complete the picture.

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 sole parameter's 'Surface ID to remove' description is already complete. The phrase 'by ID' in the description adds nothing beyond 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+resource ('Remove a general surface (&SURF) by ID'), which is unambiguous and immediately distinguishes it from add_surface/update_surface in the sibling set. The parenthetical object-type notation further pins down the resource.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the object-type notation, and the rule reference points to a knowledge lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., when to update vs. remove a surface, or relationship to update_surface/assign_surface).

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