Create An Equipment Make (Deprecated)

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

Annotations only provide basic hints (non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description goes far beyond: it discloses the deprecation timeline, non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), request payload transformation (top-level args vs nested 'managed_equipment_make'), company_id fallback, successful response shape (HTTP 201 with new id), and common error status codes (401/403/404).

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 but front-loaded with purpose and deprecation, then systematically covers nesting, defaults, idempotency, errors, required parameters, API area, and endpoint. Every sentence contributes distinct information, with only a minor typo ('an new') not detracting from 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating the response behavior (returns record with new id, HTTP 201), failure modes, deprecation and replacement path, and parameter defaults. For a 3-parameter tool, this completely covers invocation requirements and edge cases.

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?

Though the schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning not in the schema: the nesting transformation ('they are nested under "managed_equipment_make" in the request payload for you') and the company_id default to procore_set_config. This is high-value context beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Creates a new equipment make for the specified Procore company." It also clearly distinguishes this deprecated tool from alternatives by pointing to newer versions via procore_search_endpoints, and it includes the exact endpoint and API category.

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?

Explicitly says DEPRECATED and directs users to prefer a newer version, with a concrete path to find it (procore_search_endpoints), making the when-not-to-use unambiguous. It also explains company_id defaulting and lists required parameters, which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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