Update Equipment Log

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: PATCH semantics with partial updates, project_id defaulting to configured value, the need to resolve id against an existing record, successful return of the modified log, and detailed error payload behavior with typical HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 well-structured, beginning with the core purpose and then covering partial update semantics, defaults, prerequisites, return value, errors, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence carries information, and it's front-loaded with the main action. Slightly long, but no filler.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers success return and error outcomes. It mentions required parameters and points to an external guide for attachments/locations. It doesn't detail the equipment_log object structure, but the schema allows additionalProperties and the need for external guidance is acknowledged.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that equipment_log accepts only fields to change, that project_id defaults to the configured value when omitted, and that id must reference an existing record resolved via a list tool. These enrich the bare schema definitions, though the equipment_log object itself remains open-ended.

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 'Update single Equipment Log,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It differentiates from create/delete/list operations and includes the exact endpoint, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'update_an_project_equipment_log.'

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?

It provides concrete usage guidance: send only fields to change, omitted fields keep current values, and resolve the id with a list tool first. It also explains the project_id default behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., use create for new logs) or name alternative tools.

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