Update An Equipment Type

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 on success. It also provides the HTTP method PATCH and API domain. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, so the description adds useful behavioral context. No contradictions.

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 with five sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, it contains some redundancy ('Update a specified equipment type' followed by 'Use this to update...'). The API endpoint info is useful. Overall, it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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?

The description covers the core behavior (partial update, return modified object) and lists required parameters. It provides API endpoint and domain. However, it does not mention the optional parameter 'is_active' or describe error handling/validation. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description only lists the required parameter names without adding additional semantic meaning or usage context. It does not clarify the ambiguity in the schema's description of 'id' (which is labeled as company ID but likely is equipment type ID). Thus, the description adds minimal value to parameter understanding.

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 a specified equipment type. The verb 'update' and resource 'equipment type' are specific. While it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update_an_equipment or update_an_equipment_make, the resource name makes the purpose unambiguous. The mention of 'Field Productivity records' adds context but is slightly confusing as it seems to refer to the records being updated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_an_equipment_type, delete_a_equipment_type, or update_an_equipment. It only states 'Use this to update an existing Field Productivity records' which is tautological. No when-not-to-use or alternative naming.

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