Disassociate Equipment With Project (Company)

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds specifics about irreversibility ('This cannot be undone', 'Permanently removes') and provides the API endpoint. No contradictions.

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 about 4 sentences but contains redundancy: 'permanently delete' and 'Permanently removes' are repetitive, as are 'This cannot be undone' and 'This action cannot be undone'. Could be more concise.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, required parameter, and API reference. It lacks detail on what 'disassociate' means for the equipment records, but the core action is sufficiently clear.

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 only parameter, company_id, is described in the input schema as a URL path parameter. The description repeats 'Required parameters: company_id' but adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 disassociates equipment with a project at the company level and explicitly says it permanently deletes records. The title and description distinguish it from the project-level sibling (disassociate_equipment_with_project_project) and the associate counterpart.

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 explicitly says to use for permanent deletion and warns it cannot be undone. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply the alternative for project-level disassociation.

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