Update Equipment (Project)

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it updates specified records and returns the modified object, and notes partial update behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would be valuable given openWorldHint=true.

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 three sentences of purpose and behavior, followed by technical details (required params, API version, endpoint). It is mostly concise and front-loaded, though the technical details at the end could be slightly more integrated.

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 update tool with 2 path parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, partial update behavior, return value, and endpoint details. It is missing what the request body should contain (since the schema only includes path params), but otherwise complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description reiterates that project_id and company_id are required but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema descriptions.

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 (Project)' and explains it updates existing Equipment records with only supplied fields changed. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Project' and providing the exact endpoint, which differentiates it from company-level or bulk update variants.

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 implies usage for partial updates ('only the supplied fields are changed') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update_equipment_company or update_equipment_project_company_v2_0. It mentions required parameters but no guidance on when not to use it.

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