Update An Equipment Make

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

Discloses partial update behavior and return of modified object, adding value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Endpoint and API category are included. No contradiction with 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?

Concise, front-loaded with verb-resource, and includes API reference. However, the 'Required parameters' line is redundant given schema, and the contradiction slightly detracts.

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?

No output schema, but description notes return of modified object. Lacks details on error conditions or pagination. For a simple update with 4 required params, it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so description adds minimal value. It lists required parameters but duplicates schema. Mention of 'only supplied fields' conflicts with all fields being required in schema, reducing clarity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a specified equipment make' and specifies it modifies Field Productivity records via partial update. However, it does not differentiate from sibling update tools for equipment makes (e.g., update_equipment_make_company), lacking explicit distinction.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to update company vs project level equipment makes. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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