Update reaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond 'update' – it doesn't explain how unspecified fields are treated (merge vs replace), what defaults apply, or what happens to existing parameters, so it contributes little behavioral context.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded, which is good. The second line (a cryptic '[bulc-mcp rules] FIRE-003...' reference) is terse but its value and meaning are opaque, so it neither wastes much space nor clearly earns its place.

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?

This is a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 60% parameter coverage. The description does not explain the effect of the update, required context, or the meaning of the undocumented parameters, leaving the agent without enough to call it correctly.

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 60%, leaving co_yield, hcn_yield, soot_yield, and radiative_fraction undocumented, and the description mentions no parameters at all. With this coverage gap the description should compensate by explaining the updatable fields but does not, so it adds no meaning over 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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (combustion reaction parameters), which is more than a tautology and identifies the object being modified. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as update_fire, add_fire, or add_species.

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?

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_fire or update_fire, nor any prerequisites. The FIRE-xxx rules reference hints at external constraints but does not tell the agent when this tool is the correct choice.

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