Update Project Equipment Maintenance Log

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's claim of updating is consistent. It adds that 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update), which is useful. No mention of side effects, permissions, or error cases. Describes return of modified object.

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?

Five sentences, compact. Includes endpoint and required params. Could be slightly tighter (e.g., avoid repeating 'Field Productivity records'). No obvious fluff, but not maximally concise.

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?

No output schema, but description states 'returns the modified object on success', which provides essential info. Lacks details on errors, permissions, or rate limits. Schema covers all parameters. Adequate for a simple update operation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond schema. The hint about 'only the supplied fields are changed' indirectly clarifies optional parameters are updatable, a minor addition.

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 an existing project equipment maintenance log, with verb 'Update' and specific resource. However, it refers to 'Field Productivity records' which is broader than the actual resource, causing slight confusion. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_project_equipment_maintenance_log' or other update tools. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use. Only mentions required parameters and return value.

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