Update Status Of Equipment (Company)

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. Description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and returns modified object. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is three sentences plus endpoint info. Concise but includes redundant endpoint details already implied by schema. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Covers key aspects: updates existing record, only supplied fields changed, returns modified object. No output schema exists, but return behavior is mentioned. Adequate for a simple 3-parameter tool with annotations.

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 description adds little beyond listing required parameters and endpoint details. Does not elaborate on status_id meaning or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it updates status of equipment at company level, with title and endpoint emphasizing company context. Distinguishes from sibling 'update_status_of_equipment_project' implicitly via company reference, but does not explicitly compare alternatives.

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?

States 'Use this to update an existing Equipment records' and specifies required parameters. Provides clear context for usage but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternative mention. Sibling tools exist for project context, which is hinted at by endpoint.

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