Create Equipment

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

The description states that it creates a new record and returns the created object on HTTP 201. Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds some behavioral context (return value, HTTP status) but does not elaborate on authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation.

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 somewhat repetitive, stating 'Create a new Equipment' and immediately 'Create a new Field Productivity records.' The information about the API endpoint and Procore API category is useful but could be more concise. The key information is front-loaded.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description mentions the required parameter, the return behavior, and the API endpoint. However, it does not explain optional parameter dependencies, constraints, or how the new equipment relates to other entities (e.g., projects). Given the schema is comprehensive, the description is adequate but not complete for a complex resource creation.

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 covers 100% of the 15 parameters with individual descriptions. The description reiterates the required company_id but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb 'Create' and resource 'Equipment' associated with a company. It specifies the required parameter company_id and the API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from other create tools in the sibling list, but the name and context are sufficiently 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 says 'Use this to create a new Field Productivity records in Procore,' implying the context. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other create tools (e.g., create_equipment_project, create_a_piece_of_equipment) and no 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.