Update Equipment Category

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate this is a mutation tool. The description adds only that it returns the modified object, but lacks details on authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Each sentence adds value, though the API endpoint and Procore navigation details are not strictly necessary for an AI agent but do not harm conciseness.

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 the tool is a simple update with 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers basic usage. However, it omits details about partial updates, error scenarios, and the behavior of optional fields like 'is_active', making it adequate but incomplete.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description lists required parameters but does not explain the meaning or effect of 'is_active' or the 'name' field beyond the schema, so it adds minimal value.

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 a specified equipment category' and mentions updating Field Productivity records. However, it does not differentiate among sibling tools like update_equipment_category_company or update_equipment_category_project, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 Field Productivity records (only the supplied fields are changed)', providing when to use. But it does not specify when not to use or list alternatives, such as project-level update tools.

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