Create Equipment Type (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds that it returns the created object on success with HTTP 201, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and includes API reference. However, it contains redundancy (e.g., 'Create equipment type' repeated, 'Creates a new Equipment records' appears twice). Still efficient overall.

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?

No output schema, so the description ideally would explain the response structure. It only mentions HTTP 201 and return of the created object. While acceptable, it leaves out details about what properties are returned, making it moderately complete for a creation tool.

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, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description lists required parameters but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool creates an equipment type at the company level, with the verb 'create' and resource 'Equipment Type'. The title explicitly says '(Company)', distinguishing it from similar tools like create_equipment_type_project. However, the phrase 'creates a new Equipment records' is slightly ambiguous but still clear.

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 does not explicitly provide when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies company-level usage via the title, but no direct comparison with other equipment type creation tools is given. No 'when-not' or alternative guidance.

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