Update Status Of Equipment (Project)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), idempotentHint=false. The description adds that it performs a partial update (only supplied fields changed) and returns the modified object on success. This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is concise: two sentences plus endpoint information. It is front-loaded with the action and includes essential details without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the partial update behavior and return value. It does not discuss error conditions, but the input schema is fully described. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description lists required parameters but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, 'status_id' is described in schema as 'the status of the equipment.' No extra semantics provided.

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 status of equipment (Project)' and explains it updates existing Equipment records, only supplied fields are changed, and returns the modified object. The endpoint is provided. It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_update_status_of_equipment_project and update_status_of_equipment_company.

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 'Use this to update an existing Equipment records (only the supplied fields are changed).' It lists required parameters but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives like the bulk update. However, the context is clear for a single-record update.

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