Spr remove water source

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context such as cascading effects, required permissions, or reversibility beyond 'remove by ID'. With annotations covering the safety profile, this lack of added context warrants a 2.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the appended '[bulc-mcp rules] SPR-001 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' line is cryptic and may not earn its place for tool selection. Still, overall length is minimal. Score 4.

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 removal tool with rich annotations and a fully specified single parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any indication of side effects, such as whether dependent pipes or nodes are also removed, which an agent may need. Score 3.

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% and the single id parameter is fully described as 'Water source ID to remove'. The description's 'by ID' adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Remove a water source by ID'), making the action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling removal tools like spr_remove_pipe or spr_remove_node, so sibling differentiation is absent. Score 4.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The cryptic '[bulc-mcp rules]' line does not convey usage context for selecting the tool. Score 2.

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