Delete Equipment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'This cannot be undone' and 'Permanently removes', emphasizing irreversibility. It also provides the API endpoint and domain (Project Management > Field Productivity). 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 repeats 'This cannot be undone' and 'Permanently removes' in a redundant manner. Essential information is present but could be more concise. It includes API details which are useful but not strictly necessary.

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 adequately covers the deletion action and required parameters. However, it does not discuss potential side effects, permissions needed, or idempotency behavior (though annotations indicate idempotentHint=true). For a simple delete with good schema and annotations, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description only restates required parameters without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 deletes a piece of equipment and permanently removes Field Productivity records. It identifies the verb (delete), resource (equipment), and scope (single record via company_id and id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bulk_delete_managed_equipment or delete_equipment_attachment_company.

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 guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk_delete). It implies individual deletion by requiring specific identifiers, but offers no when-not-to-use advice or alternative references.

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