Update Equipment Make (Company)

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns the modified object and only supplied fields are changed, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema already imply. This adds some context but is not extensive.

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 3 sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage behavior (partial update), required parameters, and API reference. No extraneous information.

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 tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, update behavior, return value, and required parameters. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly, though it could briefly mention the company scope explicitly.

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 description states 'only the supplied fields are changed', which clarifies partial update semantics beyond the input schema. The schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds meaningful context about how they are used together.

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 equipment make (Company)' and explains it updates existing records with only supplied fields changed. The verb (update) and resource (equipment make) are unambiguous, and the scope (company) differentiates it from project-level siblings.

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 says to use for updating existing records and lists required parameters, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like create or delete. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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