Update slcf

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 largely covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this is a partial or full overwrite, what happens to unspecified fields, or whether the ID must already exist. Given annotation coverage the bar is lower, but the prose contributes almost no extra 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?

It is short and the core verb+resource is front-loaded, so there is no padding. However, the second sentence is a garbled rule reference that costs a line without conveying usable information, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 13% schema coverage, the description is far too thin — it never characterizes the editable geometry/quantity fields or the effect of the update. It identifies the tool and the required ID but leaves the agent unable to construct a correct call.

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 13% — just the id field — leaving seven parameters (pbx, pby, pbz, vector, spec_id, quantity, cell_centered) undocumented in both schema and description. The description supplies no meaning, units, ranges, or defaults for any of them, so an agent cannot know what a valid update payload looks like.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing SLCF output by ID"), which is better than a tautology, but SLCF is unexplained jargon and the description never distinguishes itself from siblings like add_slcf, remove_slcf, or list_slcf. An agent must already know what an SLCF output is to use this confidently.

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 statement of when to use this versus add_slcf/remove_slcf, nor any prerequisite about the target object existing. The second sentence ("[bulc-mcp rules] OUT-002 — bulc_knowledge_search \"<id>\"") is a cryptic rule pointer rather than actionable guidance, and its quoting is ambiguous enough that an agent cannot reliably act on it.

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