Bulk Update Managed Equipment Models (Deprecated)

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations: company_id default behavior, error payload details (401/403/404), and payload nesting. However, it fails to explain how the tool selects which 'multiple' models are updated — the make_id/type_id parameters are ambiguous in this bulk context. With annotations already covering safety/idempotency, this selection gap prevents a higher score.

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 dense and every sentence contributes: purpose, deprecation, use case, payload handling, default, return value, error conditions, and endpoint. It is somewhat stream-of-consciousness rather than structured, but for a deprecated bulk endpoint with no output schema, the length is justified.

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?

The description covers deprecation, selection guidance, return behavior, common errors, and endpoint reference — well above typical. However, the lack of clarity on how to specify which records are updated (make/type filters? id list?) and the ambiguous return format ('Returns the modified managed equipment model' — singular, or list?) leaves important gaps for correct use of a bulk operation.

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 value by explaining that parameters are passed top-level and nested under 'managed_equipment_model' for the user, and that company_id defaults to the configured value. It does not, however, clarify the role of make_id/type_id in the bulk update, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opening sentence clearly states the action and resource: 'Update multiple Managed Equipment model entries is_active property with one request.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like single-record updates or bulk updates for other resource types. The deprecation notice further clarifies its role in the API.

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 explicitly recommends this tool over repeated single-record calls ('Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many managed equipment models at once') and directs users away from it due to deprecation, instructing them to use procore_search_endpoints to find a newer version. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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