Create Equipment Model (Project)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of creation and HTTP 201 response adds moderate context. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors such as idempotency (though annotation says false), potential side effects, or requirements like authentication or rate limits. The description adds value beyond annotations but not extensively.

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 three sentences plus a list of required parameters and endpoint info. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, some redundancy exists: it repeats the title 'Create equipment model (Project)' and the phrase 'Creates a new Equipment records' is nearly identical to the first sentence. Still, it is compact and well-structured.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose, success response, and required parameters. However, it lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing equipment make), error handling, or comparison with similar tools. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of sibling tools, the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 documents each parameter fully. The description lists required parameters and briefly restates schema content (e.g., 'active/Inactive indicator for Equipment Model'), but does not add new meaning, constraints, or relationships. As a result, it provides minimal additional value 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 equipment model records in Procore, specifies the endpoint, and returns the created object. The title includes '(Project)' to indicate scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_equipment_model_company' or 'create_an_equipment_model', which may serve a similar purpose at the company 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?

The description says 'Use this to create a new Equipment records' and lists required parameters, but provides no guidance on when to use this project-scoped tool versus company-scoped alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existence of equipment make) or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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