Update A Maintenance Record (Project)

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

The description discloses that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned. This adds context beyond the annotations, which already indicate mutating behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. No information is provided on error handling or authorization.

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, consisting of two main sentences plus a list and endpoint reference. It front-loads the core action. However, the inclusion of API endpoint details may be extraneous for an AI agent and could be restructured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description lacks important context: no information on permissions, possible values for update fields, error responses, or handling of nested objects. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but the tool description should supplement this with behavioral nuances.

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?

While the input schema has 100% description coverage, the tool description adds minimal value by merely listing parameter names. It incorrectly states that 'equipment_id' is required, contradicting the schema's required array which omits it. The description does not explain the meaning or expected format of optional fields like 'type' or 'issue'.

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 specifies partial updates and return of the modified object. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_a_maintenance_record' (non-project version), relying on the name and endpoint for differentiation.

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 provides minimal usage guidance: it says to use it to update existing equipment records and lists required parameters. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, and does not mention alternatives (e.g., create vs update). The discrepancy between stated required parameters and the schema's required list could mislead an agent.

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