Spr add water source

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds configuration grouping (which parameters belong to which source type) but says nothing about mutation effects such as whether an existing source is overwritten, what errors occur, or what the tool returns on success.

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 first sentence is dense but well front-loaded, listing source types with their governing parameters. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] SPR-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' fragment is opaque noise that does not earn its place and slightly disrupts structure.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the source-type/parameter relationship. It omits error behavior, overwrite semantics, and success/return expectations, leaving gaps an agent would need to infer for a write operation.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters individually, including per-source-type hints (e.g., 'city water', 'residual flow ... city water'). The description re-groups those parameters under each source type, adding modest organizational value but little meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 water source to an existing source node') and enumerates the four supported source types (city water, pump, gravity tank, pressure tank), which is more specific than a bare restatement. It does not explicitly contrast with spr_update_water_source or spr_remove_water_source, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the verb 'add'.

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 phrase 'to an existing source node' implies a prerequisite (a node must exist first, presumably via spr_add_node), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative guidance (e.g., when to add vs. update a water source), and the cryptic '[bulc-mcp rules] SPR-001' line gives no actionable routing.

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