Spr update water source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the set of mutable fields and does not disclose whether unlisted fields are preserved (partial vs. full replace), any validation constraints, or what the response contains.

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 lines with the core action front-loaded and no redundant prose. The bracketed rule-reference line is slightly cryptic but does not pad the text; a minor deduction only because it is unexplained inline.

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, annotations cover the safety profile and the schema documents every parameter with units and defaults, so the description's job is mostly purpose plus field coverage, which it does. The one real gap is the absence of any statement on partial-update semantics or return behavior, but given the rich annotations and full schema coverage this is a minor omission.

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 each parameter is documented with units (L/min, MPa, m³, defaults), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description's field list adds nothing beyond the schema's enum values and parameter descriptions, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing water source'), and enumerates the updateable facets (type, pressures, pump flow/head/curve, tank level). It clearly distinguishes itself from spr_add_water_source and spr_remove_water_source by verb, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'an existing water source' (use when modifying, not creating/removing), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. The '[bulc-mcp rules]' citation points to knowledge-search lookups but does not tell the agent which conditions select this tool over spr_add_water_source or spr_pump_sizing.

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