Create Equipment Category (Deprecated)

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

Description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: non-idempotence ('calling it again creates another record'), HTTP 201 return with new id, common error statuses (401/403/404), and the flattening of nested payload fields. Annotations already hint at non-idempotence, but the description provides concrete error scenarios and exact behavior.

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?

Description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, deprecation, replacement advice, payload flattening, defaults, return behavior, error codes, required params, and API endpoint. Front-loaded with the core create purpose and deprecation warning.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return value (new id, HTTP 201), error payload structure and common codes, required parameters, defaults, and full endpoint. It gives an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret the result 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 covers 100% of parameters, but description adds meaning: fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the API request payload, and company_id has a sensible default from procore_set_config. This goes beyond the schema by explaining practical invocation details.

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?

Description clearly states it creates an equipment category entry with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish between sibling tools like create_equipment_category_project or create_equipment_category_company, though the endpoint URI implies company-level scope.

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?

Explicitly states the endpoint is deprecated, advises using a newer version, and tells the agent to use procore_search_endpoints to find it. Also explains company_id defaults from procore_set_config. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' beyond deprecation, but the guidance is clear.

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