Bulk Update Equipment (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object, but it fails to disclose the actual input parameters (the request body for update fields is missing from the schema). No mention of authorization requirements, rate limits, or return format (array vs. single object). With no output schema, the description should cover return details but does so only vaguely.

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 three sentences with no verbose repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the required parameter. The inclusion of endpoint information may be marginally useful for debugging but is not essential for tool selection. Overall, it is efficient.

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 is a bulk update with no output schema and missing body parameters in the schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify whether the update data is an array of objects, which fields are updatable, or what success/error responses look like. The agent would need to infer from the endpoint name, which is insufficient.

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?

The input schema only includes company_id (100% coverage for that param), but the description implies additional parameters for the update data in the request body, which are not described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for company_id, stating it is required but omitting the actual update fields and their types. This leaves the agent uninformed about how to structure the update request.

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 verb (update), resource (Equipment), and scope (company-level). It specifies that only supplied fields are changed, which clarifies the partial update behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bulk_update_equipment_project' or 'update_equipment_company_v2_0', though the name and title provide context.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Equipment records' and mentions the required parameter company_id, giving clear usage context. However, it provides no exclusion criteria or alternatives, such as when to use single-update tools or bulk status updates, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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