Update An Equipment Make (Deprecated)

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing partial update semantics (omitted fields retain values), payload structure (fields nested under managed_equipment_make), default behavior for company_id, success return value, and common error scenarios (401, 403, 404). This is rich, actionable behavior disclosure consistent with the 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 is long but information-dense, with no filler. It is front-loaded with purpose and deprecation, then proceeds through usage, defaults, response, and errors. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, though a slightly shorter version could preserve 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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the return value (modified equipment make), error codes, deprecation context, payload nesting, and prerequisite id resolution. For a four-parameter update tool, this is complete and directly actionable.

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?

Adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: explains that fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under managed_equipment_make in the payload, notes that only provided fields are updated, and mentions company_id default. However, it states company_id defaults when omitted while the schema lists it as required, creating a minor inconsistency that could confuse an agent.

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 'Update a specified equipment make,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_an_equipment_make, delete_an_equipment_make, and list_all_equipment_makes.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: marks the tool as deprecated, directs users to prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints to find it, explains partial update behavior, instructs to resolve id via the matching list tool, and clarifies company_id default. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool and what alternatives exist.

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