Update Equipment (Company) (Deprecated)

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: deprecation and removal schedule, PATCH semantics, defaulting of company_id, successful return payload ('modified equipment'), and common error codes (401, 403, 404). This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and failure modes beyond the 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 dense but efficient; every sentence conveys useful information (deprecation, partial updates, default, return value, error codes, endpoint). It could be trimmed slightly since the title already indicates deprecated, but overall it is well-structured for an API tool.

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?

With a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the operation, scope, deprecation, return value, and failure modes. It also includes the API resource path and endpoint, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 one parameter description ('URL path parameter — unique identifier for the company'). The description adds the default behavior ('company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted') and marks it as required, which goes beyond the schema. This justifies a 4 rather than the baseline 3.

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 'Updates an existing equipment for the specified Procore company,' clearly identifying the verb, resource, and company scope. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is deprecated and directing users to a newer version, plus specifying the exact API endpoint (PATCH /rest/v2.0/companies/{company_id}/equipment_register).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use and when not to: it advises preferring a newer version and using procore_search_endpoints to locate it. It also explains partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') and the company_id default behavior, giving the agent actionable context.

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