Update Deleted Equipment Serial Number (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: deprecation schedule, partial update behavior (omitted fields keep values), payload nesting (top-level vs managed_equipment), config default for company_id, and error scenarios with HTTP status codes. 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 long but well-structured: purpose, deprecation warning, behavior, parameter guidance, errors, and endpoint. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Required parameters' sentence repeats schema information. Slightly longer than necessary but appropriately detailed for a deprecated endpoint.

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 exists, but the description fully covers return value ('Returns the modified deleted equipment serial number on success') and error handling (common 401/403/404). It also explains deprecation, partial updates, config defaults, and id resolution, making it complete for a complex, deprecated operation.

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 covers all parameters with basic descriptions, but the description adds crucial meaning: explaining that record fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the payload, company_id defaults from config, and id must be resolved via a list tool. This goes beyond schema to clarify invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update a serial number for a deleted piece of Equipment.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_equipment by focusing on deleted equipment. The deprecation notice adds context without confusing the core purpose.

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?

Explicitly states deprecation and instructs to prefer a newer version, even pointing to procore_search_endpoints to find it. Also provides when and how to use: partial update semantics, id resolution via matching list tool, and company_id default behavior. This is strong guidance.

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