update_obstacleModify an existing obstacle by ID, supplying only the fields to change. Use it to adjust obstacle geometry or associated surfaces in a fire-simulation model.
Update an existing obstacle by ID. Provide only fields to change. [bulc-mcp rules] GEN-003, GEO-002, GEO-005 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Obstacle ID to update | |
| xb | No | ||
| surf_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful partial-update contract ('provide only fields to change'), but says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved, whether an FDS re-run/validation is needed, or any failure modes.
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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second sentence is useful, but the appended '[bulc-mcp rules] GEN-003, GEO-002, GEO-005' block is opaque noise that consumes attention without conveying actionable meaning to the caller.
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?
A mutation tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters should carry more of the load: valid ranges/meaning for xb, the format of surf_ids, whether surf_ids must already exist, and side effects on the simulation. None of that is present, leaving the definition materially incomplete.
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 33% — just 'id' is documented. The description adds nothing about xb (a fixed 6-number array, presumably a bounding box) or surf_ids (surface references), which are the substantive editable fields and exactly where the agent needs help. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 obstacle by ID'), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as transform_obstacle, set_fds_properties, or update_hole/update_vent, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
'Provide only fields to change' hints at patch semantics but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing advice against transform_obstacle or set_fds_properties. The trailing rules citation (GEN-003, GEO-002, GEO-005) is an opaque pointer that does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.