Create Equipment Category (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds that it returns the created object with HTTP 201, but lacks details on side effects, validation, or error conditions. It does not contradict 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 short (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the action. However, it contains a typo ('Equipment records') and redundant phrasing ('Create equipment category (Company)' repeats title). Still, it is mostly efficient and to the point.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics: action, endpoint, required params, and success response. Missing details include potential errors, uniqueness constraints, and output structure, but overall it is minimally viable.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage; the description merely repeats the required parameters (company_id, name, is_active) without adding deeper context like valid name format, default values, or relationships. Baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool creates an equipment category at the company level, with the title and name indicating the scope. However, it imprecisely says 'Creates a new Equipment records' instead of 'Equipment Category record', which could cause minor confusion. The endpoint and required parameters reinforce the purpose.

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 the endpoint, implying company-level use, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like create_equipment_category_project or create_equipment_category. No 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided beyond the tool's name.

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