Create Equipment Log.

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a resource and returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), which aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false). It adds contextual info about the HTTP response beyond annotations, though it does not detail failure modes or side effects.

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 concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the core action and providing API details. The repetition of 'Field Productivity records' is minor redundancy, but overall efficient.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the required parameter (company_id) and the success response. It does not explain the purpose or optionality of other parameters, leaving some gap for the agent to infer usage. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by explicitly noting company_id as required and revealing its role as a path parameter via the endpoint URL. This extra context enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 it creates a new equipment log for Field Productivity records, with the Procore API category and endpoint. However, it does not differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like create_an_project_equipment_log or create_equipment_log_project, which operate at the project level.

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?

It specifies when to use it ('Use this to create a new Field Productivity records in Procore') but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The context of use is implied rather than explicit.

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