Create A Piece Of Equipment

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that it creates a record and returns HTTP 201, which is standard for create tools. No additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single paragraph that repeats 'Create a new Field Productivity records' twice. It includes endpoint details that may not be necessary. Could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

For a simple create operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is created and the response. It is complete given the low complexity, though it doesn't clarify the domain distinction between equipment and field productivity.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters (project_id, equipment_name) with full descriptions. The description only mentions project_id as required, adding no extra meaning for equipment_name. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 it creates a Field Productivity record and returns the created object. However, there is a slight confusion between 'Equipment' in the name and 'Field Productivity records' in the description, which may cause ambiguity. It does not differentiate from sibling 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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions required parameters and the API endpoint but does not describe when-not-to-use or recommend alternatives.

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