Update A Maintenance Record

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive update. The description adds that it returns the modified object and performs partial updates ('only the supplied fields are changed'). However, there is an inconsistency: the description lists equipment_id as required, but the schema does not. This could mislead the agent.

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 at 4 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. However, it repeats the update action twice ('Update an existing maintenance record' and 'Updates the specified Equipment records'). Could be slightly tighter.

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?

With 8 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description lacks detail. It does not explain the structure of nested objects or the return format beyond 'modified object'. The required parameter inconsistency further reduces completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters but incorrectly includes equipment_id as required—the schema only requires maintenance_id and company_id. This mistake reduces value. The endpoint path provides some context but does not clarify the nested objects (type, issue, notes, start_date, duration) 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 the tool updates an existing maintenance record by ID. It provides the verb-update and resource-maintenance record. However, it refers to 'Equipment records' which could cause confusion as the resource is maintenance records. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'update_a_maintenance_record_project' tool, but the endpoint path implies company scope.

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 update an existing Equipment records' which gives context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the project-level version. No guidance on when to prefer this over similar update tools is provided.

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