Update dump config

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

Annotations already carry readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context of its own beyond the title: it never states what happens to parameters left unset (the schema, not the description, explains the NFRAMES backfill) or what merging behavior applies. With annotations doing the work, the description is nearly pure restatement.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of padding. The trailing bracketed rules reference is terse but not clearly earning its place in a tool description, costing it the top score.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it defers entirely to the schema for parameter semantics and gives no guidance on interaction between parameters. Since the schema is detailed and annotations cover the safety envelope, this is adequate but with a clear gap around usage and side effects.

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%, so every one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the NFRAMES backfill and the DT_BNDF omit/0 semantics. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Update output dump intervals and settings'), so an agent can tell it is a mutation of FDS output cadence settings. However, it does not differentiate from nearby siblings that also touch outputs (set_plot3d_outputs, update_slcf, set_plot3d_outputs), so the scope boundary is left implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The bracketed 'bulc-mcp rules' line references rule IDs but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus set_plot3d_outputs or update_slcf.

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