Remove vent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious detail that vent removal is governed by specific buLC rules requiring a knowledge lookup, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about cascade effects on FDS namelists or failure modes.

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?

Two lines, action first, no padding. The rules tag is dense and slightly opaque, but it is not wasted text since it encodes a precondition.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essentials (what is removed, by what key, which rules govern it) are present. Missing is any statement of prerequisites, side effects, or what the tool returns, which an agent calling a destructive operation would benefit from.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Vent ID to remove'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description's 'by ID' restates rather than enriches it; 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 vent') plus the keying mechanism ('by ID'), and the title/schema corroborate it. It doesn't distinguish itself from the many other remove_* siblings (remove_bndf, remove_obstacle, remove_hole), but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

The bracketed line points at rules VENT-002/VENT-004 and a lookup tool (bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"), which implies a pre-removal compliance check. However, it never states when to use this versus update_vent, list_vents, or add_vent, and the routing hint is cryptic rather than explanatory.

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