Spr add pipe

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description adds the rule references (SPR-002/SPR-008) and the riser sequencing constraint, but says nothing about prerequisites (existing nodes) or what happens on an invalid connection.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the riser caveat second. The trailing "[bulc-mcp rules] SPR-002, SPR-008 — bulc_knowledge_search" fragment is terse and slightly cryptic but adds a lookup pointer without bloat.

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 an 8-parameter mutating add-tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core purpose and the key vertical-vs-horizontal workflow are covered. It is still thin on prerequisites (nodes must exist, matching story) and on what the call yields or how failures surface.

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 inline docs already explain diameter units, material enums, C-factor defaults, and valve semantics (a closed valve excludes the pipe). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so 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?

"Connect two nodes with a pipe" is a specific verb+resource and the second clause explicitly separates this from spr_add_riser's vertical-only case. It doesn't differentiate against other nearby siblings such as spr_update_pipe or spr_insert_fitting, but the primary operation 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 description gives concrete routing guidance: for a floor-to-floor connection run spr_add_riser (exactly vertical) first, then connect horizontally on the upper story. That is a real when-to-use-an-alternative rule, though it offers no guidance on when not to call this tool (e.g. duplicates, cross-story horizontal runs).

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