Spr add node

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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: node ids are generated by the store, and labels become FDS ids only after *_apply_to_fds. These downstream-effect details are exactly what annotations cannot 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?

Front-loads the core action and node types, then packs fitting behavior, id generation, labeling, and rule links compactly. The bulc-mcp bracketed tags are slightly noisy but each sentence carries information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers id generation, label-to-FDS-flow, fitting semantics, and rule references. It omits any note on what happens to the store state or how the new node relates to connected pipes, a minor 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%, so the schema already documents x/y/z/type/label/fitting/floorIndex, including the 'auto' fitting detection logic. The description repeats the fitting default and label purpose but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema—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 ('Add a pipe network node') and enumerates the node types (junction, sprinkler, source), which lets an agent distinguish it from spr_add_pipe and spr_add_sprinkler_head. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Provides workflow hints ('call spr_list_summary to get' generated ids) and a labeling convention for heads/terminals, plus rule references. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives like spr_add_pipe, spr_insert_fitting, or the specialized spr_add_sprinkler_head/spr_add_water_source siblings—usage is implied rather than specified.

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