update_ventModify an existing fire-simulation vent by ID, changing coordinates, surface link, mass flux, or dynamic pressure to correct HVAC smoke-control inputs.
Update an existing vent by ID. [bulc-mcp rules] GEN-003, VENT-002, VENT-004 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Vent ID to update | |
| xb | No | ||
| surf_id | No | ||
| mass_flux | No | ||
| dynamic_pressure | 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 readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral note about consulting bulc rules via bulc_knowledge_search, but says nothing about which fields mutate, whether changes propagate to the FDS model, or any auth/permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Front-loaded and short, which is good, but the second line is opaque: it cites rule IDs and a tool-name call snippet without explaining their relevance, so a byte is saved at the cost of clarity.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and 80% of parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. It should at least characterize the mutable fields (xb geometry, surf_id boundary assignment, mass_flux, dynamic_pressure) to let an agent 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 description coverage is only 20% (only id is documented), so the description carries the burden for xb, surf_id, mass_flux, and dynamic_pressure. It adds nothing beyond 'by ID' — no meaning, units, or format for those four parameters — leaving the gap unaddressed.
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 (vent) scoped by ID, which an agent can distinguish from siblings add_vent, remove_vent, and list_vents. It stops short of differentiating from the parallel update_* family (update_obstacle, update_device), but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The bulc rules line implies the agent should consult GEN-003/VENT-002/VENT-004, but it never says under what conditions to reach for this tool over add_vent or set_open_boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.