Update Equipment Status (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and that the modified object is returned. It lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or rate limits.

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 four sentences, with some redundancy (first sentence restates title). It includes API endpoint details that, while potentially useful, add length. Could be more concise by removing the first sentence and focusing on usage.

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?

The description covers basic operation (update, partial update, return modified object) but lacks context on when to use vs. bulk updates, prerequisites, error handling, and output schema. For a moderate-complexity mutation tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage, the input schema already describes each parameter (status_id, company_id, name, type, is_active). The description only reiterates required parameters and adds no new semantic information beyond the 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 it updates equipment status records at the company level, using the verb 'Update' and specifying 'Equipment records'. The title includes 'Company' to differentiate from project-level versions, though it does not explicitly call out sibling tools like bulk updates.

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 this for updating existing equipment records and notes that only supplied fields are changed, which implies a partial update. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for bulk updates) or provide alternative tools like 'bulk_update_status_of_equipment_company'.

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