Create Equipment Model (Company)

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

Annotations provide no behavioral details. The description adds that it creates a record, returns the created object (HTTP 201), and lists required parameters. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. With sparse annotations, the description carries the burden and barely meets minimum transparency.

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 four sentences, efficiently covering purpose, return value, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 simple creation tool, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the response on success and the API endpoint. It lacks details about the response structure (fields of the created object), but since no output schema exists, this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description merely lists required parameters without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no explanation of how to obtain make_id or type_id).

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 verb (create), resource (equipment model), and scope (company-level). It also mentions the Procore API endpoint and HTTP 201 response, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_equipment_model_project'.

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 but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_equipment_model_project' or 'create_equipment'. The scope is implied by the title and name, but no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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