Create An Equipment Model

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

With annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicating a safe write operation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explicitly states the creation action, the success HTTP 201 status, and the returned object. This goes beyond bare annotations and provides concrete behavioral expectations.

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 with some redundancy (e.g., 'Create a new equipment model entry' and 'Creates a new Field Productivity records' repeat the same idea). While it is not overly long, it could be more concise and better structured without the repetition.

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 creates a simple resource with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: the name, required parameters, success response (HTTP 201 and returned object), and the full API endpoint path. This is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 for all 5 parameters is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The description redundantly lists required parameters but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 that the tool creates a new equipment model entry and specifies the resource as 'Field Productivity records in Procore'. The verb 'create' and resource 'equipment model' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_an_equipment_make' or 'create_an_equipment_type', which would add a point.

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 usage context ('Use this to create a new Field Productivity records') and lists required parameters, but it does not give explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The lack of exclusions or alternative references keeps it at moderate clarity.

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