Update An Project Equipment Log

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update) and 'returns the modified object on success'. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false), so this is helpful. 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loading the purpose. There is slight redundancy between the first two sentences ('Update an Project Equipment Log' vs 'Use this to update...'). Could be tightened but generally acceptable.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value and the API area. However, it does not explain the 9 parameters beyond listing required ones, nor explicitly state that it is a PATCH endpoint. The partial update behavior is implied but not stated clearly. Incomplete for a tool with many parameters.

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 as 'project_id, id', but the schema marks only 'id' as required, which is a factual error. The description also gives endpoint context, but the schema parameter descriptions have inaccuracies (e.g., id described as company ID). Overall adds some value but with a notable error.

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 it updates an existing Project Equipment Log and returns the modified object. It distinguishes from create/delete siblings. However, there is inconsistency: it refers to 'Field Productivity records' while the tool name and endpoint are about equipment logs, causing minor confusion.

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...' but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool, alternatives, or prerequisite conditions. No explicit context for selection among many update tools.

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