Bulk Update Managed Equipment Types

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

The description adds some context beyond annotations: it states that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned. Annotations indicate write but not destructive, which is consistent. However, it lacks details on idempotency, side effects, or what happens if records do not exist.

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 concise, fitting in three sentences that front-load the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and includes relevant details like required parameters and API endpoint, though there is minor redundancy with 'Field Productivity' mentioned twice.

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 (bulk update) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the tool selects which equipment types to update (e.g., all, by category) or the structure of the returned objects. The reliance on schema-only for parameter details leaves gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description emphasizes 'is_active' as the property being updated and notes that 'company_id' is required. It does not add significant meaning over the schema for the other parameter (managed_equipment_category_id), but the behavior of partial updates is clarified.

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 updates multiple Managed Equipment types entries, specifically the is_active property, in one request. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on managed equipment types, though not explicitly contrasting with other bulk update tools.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions using it to update Field Productivity records but does not explain when to prefer this over individual updates or other bulk operations, and no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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