Bulk Retrieve Managed Equipment (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: deprecation dates, failure modes with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), defaulting of company_id to procore_set_config, and the payload transformation. It also states the success return value ('Returns the modified managed equipment'). This goes well beyond what the annotations already disclose.

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 description is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds essential information: purpose, deprecation status, usage guidance, payload handling, defaults, return value, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient despite its length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (deprecation, bulk operation, default behavior, error cases) and the lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, deprecation timeline, migration path, usage context, parameter defaults, payload nesting, expected return, and common error statuses. No critical gaps are apparent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value and that record fields are passed as top-level args though nested under 'managed_equipment' in the payload. This enhances understanding of the parameters beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Restore multiple Managed Equipment with one request.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the bulk approach from repeated single-record calls. However, the tool name and title say 'Bulk Retrieve' while the description says 'Restore', creating minor ambiguity, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many managed equipment at once.' It also gives a clear exclusion by noting the deprecation and instructing to 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' This fully covers when and when not to use the tool.

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