Setup Managed Equipment Taxonomy (Deprecated)

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

The description discloses that the operation applies a change and returns the updated taxonomy, and it explains the payload transformation where record fields are passed as top-level arguments. It also enumerates common error statuses (401, 403, 404) and notes the deprecation timeline, all of which go beyond the annotations. This is rich behavioral context.

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 long but every segment serves a purpose: purpose, deprecation, param mapping, default, return behavior, error handling, and endpoint. There is minimal redundancy; even the 'Required parameters' note is short. It is dense but structured appropriately.

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 deprecated setup tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how parameters map to the payload, the default company_id, return value, and error cases. The deprecation guidance ensures an agent won't misuse it. This is a complete, standalone description.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining that types and categories should be passed as top-level arguments despite being nested under 'dependent_import_params' in the payload. It also notes that company_id defaults to procore_set_config, which is not inferable from the schema. These extras elevate the semantics.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Setup Managed Equipment Taxonomy with the specified company.' It further grounds the tool with the endpoint and API category. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling equipment-management tools like create_an_equipment_type or bulk_update_managed_equipment_types.

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 deprecation notice provides explicit guidance to prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints to find it, which addresses alternatives. It also clarifies that company_id defaults to procore_set_config and that company_id is required, giving context for invocation. It lacks a broader 'when to use vs. alternatives' statement, but the deprecation guidance is strong.

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