clm_site_equipment_command_calculate_bookable_equipment_usage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that the aggregate record is persisted, that it is recomputed from open and approved shipments/bookings, and—critically—that the record is removed when total usage becomes zero. This deletion behavior is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs to know about and is not visible in the annotations alone.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then packs the computation rule and the zero-usage deletion side effect without wasted words. It is slightly long-winded with stacked clauses, but every clause carries meaningful 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 output schema exists and the input is just two optional/nullable parameters, the description covers the core computation, the persistence aspect, and the destructive edge case. It does not state permission requirements, but the destructiveHint annotation covers the main risk. It is nearly complete for a command of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does identify BookingDate as the operative date for the aggregate. However, it only implicitly covers SiteEquipmentId as 'site equipment' in the text; neither parameter's format, optionality, or effect is explicitly explained. The description adds meaning but leaves modest gaps for a two-property input.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Recalculates and persists') plus a clear resource ('bookable site equipment's daily usage aggregate') and a date parameter. It also states the computation inputs (open and approved shipments/bookings against total available time) and the default behavior when usage is zero (aggregate removed), which makes it fully distinguishable from the large sibling set.

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 clearly implies the use case: recalculating a single equipment's daily usage aggregate after relevant changes. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus the other site-equipment commands or whether it is intended as a maintenance/background command rather than a user-facing action. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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