Update Current Project (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying it performs a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed'), returns the modified object on success, and includes the exact HTTP method (PATCH) and endpoint path. This provides useful behavioral context.

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 relatively concise, with only a few sentences covering functionality, required parameters, and API details. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the title, but overall it is efficiently structured without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple update tool with high schema coverage and basic annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it fails to clearly state that the operation updates the 'current_project' field on equipment records, leaving ambiguity about the resource being modified. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the return value. Prerequisites or constraints (e.g., required existence of equipment) are not mentioned, but these may be inferred from context.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter already has a clear schema description. The description lists required parameters but does not add new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it updates existing equipment records, using a specific verb and resource. However, the title 'Update Current Project (Company)' and first sentence may mislead an agent into thinking it updates a project object, while the actual operation updates a field on equipment records. This ambiguity reduces clarity slightly.

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 does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it differentiate this tool from siblings like 'set_current_project_company' or 'bulk_update_current_project_company'. No alternatives are mentioned, limiting the agent's ability to choose correctly among many similar tools.

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