Update Equipment (Project)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly identifies the operation as an update. It adds that it returns the modified object and performs a partial update. However, it does not disclose error conditions, permission requirements, rate limits, or other side effects beyond what annotations state.

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, with the main action in the first sentence. It includes the required parameters and endpoint, though some redundancy exists with the title. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description mentions the return of the modified object. It covers the basic purpose and partial update behavior. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks details on failure responses, permissions, or side effects, making it merely adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond repeating that company_id and project_id are required. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema.

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 verb 'update', the resource 'Equipment records', and the scope 'Project' (as indicated by parentheses and required parameters). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like update_equipment_company_v2_0 or other versioned variants, which slightly limits clarity.

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 notes that only supplied fields are changed (partial update), which is a usage hint. It also lists required parameters. However, it fails to provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative equipment update tools (e.g., company-level), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.

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