Create Unmanaged Equipment (Project)

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

The description reveals that the tool returns the created object on success (HTTP 201) and provides the endpoint URL. While annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), the description adds behavioral detail beyond them, though it omits potential error conditions or side effects.

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 the main action, and every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, return value, required parameters, and API reference. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a creation tool: it states what it does, what is returned, required parameters, and the API endpoint. However, it lacks detail on the response object structure (since no output schema) and potential error scenarios.

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?

The schema already covers parameter descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds value by clarifying that 'project_id' and 'company_id' are URL path parameters and 'identification_number' is a JSON body field, using the endpoint URL pattern. This provides semantic context 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 unmanaged equipment records in Procore, with specific verb ('Create'), resource ('unmanaged equipment'), and context ('Project'). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'unmanaged' and provides the HTTP response (201).

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 instructs 'Use this to create a new Equipment records' and lists required parameters, giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool compared to other equipment creation tools.

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