Bulk Update Status Of Equipment (Company)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the description stating updates. However, the description mentions updating records and returning modified objects, but the input schema only includes company_id with additionalProperties: false, implying no request body is allowed. This contradicts the expected behavior of a bulk update, creating confusion about how the tool actually works. The description does not address this discrepancy or reveal any side effects, permission needs, or rate limits.

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 (four sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes API endpoint details but wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, though it omits crucial information.

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), the minimal input schema and lack of output schema place a heavy burden on the description. The description fails to explain how to specify which equipment records to update, what status values are accepted, or what the response contains. The tool appears incomplete and unusable based on the provided definition.

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% for the single parameter company_id, but the description implies additional parameters for specifying records and status ('only the supplied fields are changed'). These are absent from the schema, and the description does not compensate by explaining how to provide the update data or what fields are available. The schema's additionalProperties: false prohibits any extra parameters, contradicting the description.

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 (bulk update) and resource (equipment records at company level). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'bulk_update_status_of_equipment_project' by specifying company context, providing differentiation.

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 (only the supplied fields are changed)' and notes that company_id is required. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., project-level sibling) and provides no context on prerequisites or limitations. The missing request body parameters for specifying records and status further reduce usability guidance.

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