Update Equipment Category (Deprecated)

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

The description discloses patch semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), argument nesting, default company_id behavior, return value on success, and common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers deprecation, partial update behavior, argument mapping, defaults, requirements, return values, and errors. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the structure is well-organized despite being longer than usual.

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 deprecated update tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return payload, error scenarios, prerequisites, and the deprecation timeline, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context: company_id defaults from config, id must resolve an existing parent record via list tool, and omitted fields retain values. However, there is an internal inconsistency: company_id is listed as required but also said to default when omitted, which could confuse an agent. This reduces the score from 5.

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' with a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by prominently warning about deprecation and pointing to alternatives, making the tool's purpose and status unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it warns that the endpoint is deprecated and advises preferring a newer version, instructing to use procore_search_endpoints. It also explains prerequisites like resolving id with a list tool and the default behavior for company_id, ensuring correct invocation.

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