update_materialUpdate fire-simulation material properties by ID—density, emissivity, conductivity, specific heat—to correct thermal data for accurate simulation results.
Update a material by ID. [bulc-mcp rules] SURF-001 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Material ID to update | |
| density | No | ||
| emissivity | No | ||
| conductivity | No | ||
| specific_heat | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds nothing — no mention of which properties change, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs full replacement), permission needs, or error behavior. The rules tag contributes no behavioral information.
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 tight and front-loaded, but the appended bracketed rules line is noise that an agent may misread as a required follow-up call, wasting attention. Size itself is fine.
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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, the description should at minimum explain the update semantics (partial vs full) and the material properties being set. Instead it supplies one sentence plus an unrelated rules reference, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 only 20% — just the id parameter is documented. The description names no parameters and does not explain units or semantics for density, emissivity, conductivity, or specific_heat, leaving the schema's raw property names to carry the load. It adds nothing beyond what is already in the schema.
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?
"Update a material by ID" states a specific verb (update), resource (material) and lookup key (ID), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as add_material, remove_material, or update_surface, which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus add_material, add_material_from_library, or update_surface, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The appended "[bulc-mcp rules] SURF-001" line appears to be a policy artifact rather than usable routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.