Update Equipment (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (PATCH behavior) and returns the modified object. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond the update.

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, consisting of four sentences that front-load the core purpose. It includes useful endpoint information without being verbose. Minor redundancy with the title but overall 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how it behaves (partial update), and what the user should expect (returns modified object). Missing details like error handling are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description repeats that company_id is required but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (URL path parameter, unique identifier).

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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('equipment records'). It specifies that only supplied fields are changed, indicating a partial update. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bulk_update_equipment_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bulk update or other equipment update endpoints). It mentions required parameters but lacks when-not-to-use or context for tool selection.

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