Create Equipment Type (Project)

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 the tool returns HTTP 201 and the created object on success, which is useful but does not disclose idempotency or error behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence provides unique information without redundancy or fluff.

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 create tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, required fields, and API reference. It lacks error conditions or links to docs, but is largely complete given the straightforward operation. A more complete description might mention possible failure cases, but this is acceptable.

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%; each parameter already has a clear description. The description lists the required parameters (project_id, company_id, name, category_id, is_active) but does not add semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 tool creates an equipment type at the project level in Procore, specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'Equipment Type (Project)', and distinguishes from siblings like create_equipment_type_company via the title and endpoint.

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 explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the company-level variant. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the title alone.

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