Update Equipment Maintenance Log (Deprecated)

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: partial update semantics (omitted fields keep values), nested payload flattening, config-based default for company_id, return value, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It does not contradict the annotations; readOnlyHint=false aligns with the update operation.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries useful information, covering deprecation, usage, parameters, errors, and endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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 covers all essential aspects: purpose, deprecation status, partial update behavior, parameter requirements, default values, return value, and typical error scenarios. It is sufficiently complete 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that id must identify an existing parent record, company_id defaults from config, and that record fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the payload. It also reinforces the partial-update usage.

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 a specified equipment maintenance log') and resource, distinguishing it from create/delete/list tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'update_project_equipment_maintenance_log' tool, relying on the endpoint and company_id to imply company-level 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?

Provides explicit deprecation guidance: prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints. Also advises resolving id with the matching list tool first and explains company_id defaults from procore_set_config. Lacks explicit comparison to project-scoped alternatives, but the company-level context is clear.

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