Create Equipment Make (Company)

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

The description states it creates a record and returns 201 on success, but beyond that, it lacks behavioral insights such as authorization needs, side effects, or rate limits. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds minimal extra context. For a mutation tool, more transparency about consequences (e.g., irreversible action) would be helpful.

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 at three sentences, immediately stating the purpose. It is front-loaded with the core function, followed by required fields and optional API details. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: it names the resource, scope, required fields, and success response. It also provides the API endpoint for reference. Minor omission: it does not clarify that the record is for a 'make' specifically (versus other equipment entities), but the tool name and title handle that.

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 the input schema already fully describes the parameters. The description merely lists the required parameters (company_id, name, is_active) without adding new semantics or usage context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade but also does not enhance.

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 action (Create), resource (equipment make), and scope (company). It distinguishes from siblings like create_equipment_make_project by specifying company-level. The verb 'Create' and resource 'equipment make (Company)' are explicit.

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 Equipment records in Procore' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_equipment_make_project). No guidance on when-not or exclusions. The required parameters are listed but without context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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