Update Equipment Attachment (Project)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object, which aligns with the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, error handling, or required permissions beyond the annotations. The description adds modest value beyond the structured data.

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 two sentences and a brief list of required parameters plus the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The endpoint information is slightly redundant for function selection but not excessive. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 4 URL path parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description sufficiently covers the tool's action and requirements. It states the update is partial and returns the modified object. While it could detail the response structure, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter already described as 'URL path parameter — unique identifier'. The description in the main text repeats the list of required parameters without adding further meaning. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra semantics are provided.

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 'Update equipment attachment (Project)' and explains it updates an existing Equipment record, modifying only supplied fields and returning the modified object. It lists required parameters and specifies the API endpoint, making the tool's purpose very clear and distinguishing it from siblings like update_equipment_attachment_company.

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 any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or conditions when this tool should be avoided. No comparison with sibling tools is offered, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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