Update Equipment Attachment (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds that it performs a partial update (PATCH) and returns the modified object, plus endpoint details. No contradictions 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 relatively concise, front-loading the purpose and required parameters. The inclusion of API version and endpoint adds detail but could be trimmed without loss. Overall, it is well-structured.

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 mentions return of modified object but lacks details on prerequisites, error cases, or response structure. Given no output schema, more context would be helpful. It is adequate for a simple update but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% but there is a critical issue: description says 'only the supplied fields are changed', implying optional body parameters, but the input schema only contains path parameters (equipment_id, attachment_id, company_id). The description does not clarify that the body is absent in the schema, leading to ambiguity about what fields can be updated.

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 equipment attachment record and returns the modified object. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create/delete tools, though the resource name implies update.

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?

It explains when to use: to update an existing Equipment records with only supplied fields. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, such as when a create or delete is needed, and no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., attachment must exist). The context is implied but not explicit.

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