Create Equipment Status (Company)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it creates a new record and returns the created object (HTTP 201), which aligns with non-read-only behavior. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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 relatively concise, consisting of a few sentences. It front-loads the purpose and includes structural details like the API version and endpoint. However, there is slight redundancy ('Creates a new Equipment records' appears twice), which could be trimmed. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating the tool returns the created object on success. However, it lacks details on error responses, pagination (if any), or field descriptions for the response. The tool is simple, but the description could be more complete by mentioning potential failure scenarios or the structure of the returned object.

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% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description reiterates that 'company_id', 'name', and 'type' are required but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter descriptions in schema are sufficient, so the description's additional value is minimal, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 status records (Company) and mentions the return of the created object on success. It specifies required parameters and the API endpoint, giving a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'create_equipment_company' which create actual equipment rather than statuses, so it misses some differentiation.

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 provides usage guidance by listing required parameters and the HTTP method/endpoint, indicating when to use it (to create equipment status records). However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, such as using 'update_equipment_status_company' for existing records. No exclusions or context for choosing this over other tools.

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