Spr add riser

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

Annotations only supply the generic mutability profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds real behavioral detail: it never attaches to a nearby existing node, only reuses a node at the exact position (±1 mm), always creates a NEW junction, and the riser participates in hydraulics with static head. Missing only failure/permission behavior.

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 purpose and geometry before defaults and edge cases. It is dense and a bit long, and the trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] SPR-009' line is ancillary, but most sentences carry distinct 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?

Eight parameters with no output schema, yet the description covers defaults, story selection, junction creation/reuse, and hydration implications, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. It could be more explicit about the return (only pointing to spr_list_summary for the new junction id).

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the targetZ default (same height above the target story floor as the source node above its own floor), the sameFloor alternative with a concrete dz example, and the targetFloorIndex default story. These clarify ambiguous parameters rather than merely restating them.

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 vertical floor-to-floor riser) and pins down the exact geometry (same x,y, only z changes). It clearly distinguishes the operation from the sibling spr_add_pipe by defining the riser as a perfectly vertical pipe with a new junction on the target story.

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?

Gives strong contextual guidance: how to continue the upper network from the new junction (via spr_list_summary), where to find stories (draw_list_stories / draw_add_story), and how sameFloor changes the behavior. It never explicitly states when to prefer this over spr_add_pipe, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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