Update Equipment Type (Company)

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and the modified object is returned. While helpful, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits, leaving some behavior to assumption.

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 long, covering purpose, usage, return value, and required parameters. It is efficient, though the API endpoint details could be omitted for brevity without losing value. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical 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 absence of an output schema, the description correctly notes that the modified object is returned. It mentions the API version and endpoint. However, it does not cover error scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., user permissions). For a simple update tool, the description is reasonably 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description reiterates the required parameters (type_id, company_id) but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool updates an equipment type (Company) and explains it performs a partial update on existing records, returning the modified object. This distinguishes it from create and delete 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 this tool to update existing equipment records, implying its purpose, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creation or deletion) or list alternative tools. The inclusion of required parameters helps, but more explicit guidance would improve the score.

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