Create An Equipment Model (Deprecated)

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, etc.), the description discloses non-idempotency, success response (HTTP 201 with new id), common failure modes (401, 403, 404), company_id defaulting to procore_set_config, and the automatic nesting of fields under 'managed_equipment_model.' This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not 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 long but well-structured, with each sentence covering a distinct aspect: purpose, deprecation, payload handling, default behavior, response status, error codes, required parameters, and API path. No sentence is wasted, though it could be slightly tightened without losing 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description effectively covers purpose, deprecation, required parameters, default behavior, response format, and error handling. This is a complete picture for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it, even accounting for the tool's deprecated status.

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 descriptions already cover all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context: fields are passed as top-level arguments and nested by the tool, and company_id defaults when omitted. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the invocation contract.

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 'Create a new equipment model entry,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further provides the endpoint and clarifies it creates and returns the model with its new id, distinguishing it from sibling create tools like create_an_equipment_make or create_an_equipment_type.

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 explicitly states the endpoint is deprecated and directs the agent to 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' This is clear when-not-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative-finding strategy. It also notes that calling it again creates another record, indicating non-idempotent usage.

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