Update fire

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond the index semantics - it does not say which fields get overwritten, what happens to omitted parameters, or why the rule references matter, leaving a mutation tool under-disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single efficient sentence, and the definition is short with no padding. The cryptic rule-reference line is low-value but consumes minimal space.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 20% parameter coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how to correctly supply hrrpua, ramp_id, tmp_front, or xb, nor what a successful update returns or replaces.

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 only 20% (only 'index' described), so the description carries most of the burden. It merely repeats the 0-based index fact and adds nothing about xb (a fixed 6-element array), hrrpua, ramp_id, or tmp_front, whose units and roles are undocumented in both places.

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 ('Update an existing fire source') and pins the identifier scheme as 0-based index. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby add_fire/remove_fire siblings or explain what 'update' changes.

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: nothing says when to call update_fire versus remove_fire + add_fire, nor whether the update is full-replace or partial. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] FIRE-001...' line is opaque and only gestures at an external lookup without stating any condition.

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