Create An Equipment Type

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

Annotations provide minimal behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, permission requirements, or validation rules beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 relatively concise, consisting of two clear sentences plus endpoint and required parameter lists. No unnecessary repetition, though it could be better organized (e.g., separate required params from endpoint info).

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's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description provides basic create-and-return behavior and the targeted Procore API area. However, it lacks details on response structure, possible error conditions, or how the created equipment type is used, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the required parameter names but does not add meaningful context beyond the schema descriptions—for example, it does not explain how to obtain the managed_equipment_category_id or the significance of is_active. No additional semantic enrichment.

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 states it creates a new Equipment Type Entry, but also says 'Use this to create a new Field Productivity records' which is confusing and may mislead the agent about the tool's purpose. It is distinguished from similar sibling tools by naming, but the purpose is not perfectly clear.

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 lists required parameters and mentions the API endpoint, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_an_equipment_make or create_an_equipment_model. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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