Create An Equipment Make

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

The description states it creates a record and returns HTTP 201, aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It adds the endpoint and required parameters but does not disclose potential side effects, uniqueness constraints, or authorization needs beyond what annotations imply. Annotations already indicate a non-destructive creation, so the description provides marginal additional behavioral context.

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 four sentences long, which is reasonable but contains repetition ('Create an equipment make' followed by 'Use this to create...'). The most critical information (action, required params, endpoint) is front-loaded, but some sentences could be merged for efficiency.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, required parameters, endpoint, and success response. However, it omits potential uniqueness constraints on the name, company_id validation, or error scenarios. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description repeats that company_id, name, and is_active are required and adds the endpoint URL, which clarifies company_id as a path parameter. Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, the description adds only minor additional context.

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 creates an equipment make and specifies it is for Field Productivity records in Procore. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_an_equipment_model and create_an_equipment_type by focusing on 'make'. However, the phrasing 'create a new Field Productivity records' is slightly ambiguous due to pluralization.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_an_equipment_model or create_an_equipment_type. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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