Create Equipment (Deprecated)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses non-idempotence ('calling it again creates another record'), the success behavior (returns the record with its new id and HTTP 201), and common failure modes (401/403/404 with error payloads). It also reveals the payload nesting detail ('nested under managed_equipment in the request payload for you'), providing actionable behavioral context not available from 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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: purpose, deprecation status, payload format, default behavior, success and failure semantics, required parameter, and endpoint reference. The information is densely packed but logically ordered, front-loading the core action and then layering caveats and contextual details. No filler or redundancy.

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 covers all essential contextual gaps: it explains the return value and HTTP status, error conditions, non-idempotent behavior, default for company_id, deprecation and migration path, and the exact API endpoint. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments rather than nested, which directly impacts how the agent constructs the call. It also clarifies that company_id is optional in practice due to the procore_set_config default, supplementing the schema's required flag. However, it doesn't elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 statement: 'Create a new Equipment associated with the specified company.' It further distinguishes itself by specifying the exact endpoint (POST /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/managed_equipment) and scope (company-level), setting it apart from project-level or other create-equipment siblings. The deprecation notice also clearly frames its current purpose relative to newer versions.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it flags the tool as deprecated, gives a removal date, and instructs the agent to 'prefer a newer version of this resource where one exists, and use procore_search_endpoints to find it.' It also clarifies the company_id default behavior ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted'), helping the agent know when this parameter can be omitted.

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