clm_site_equipment_command_save_site_equipment_other_info

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

The description goes well beyond the idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing consequential side effects: assigning a booking number, queuing create-background versus update-background commands (implying async execution), and re-validating the calendar slot reservation. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose before explaining the branching behavior. The drafting-vs-existing conditional and the slot re-validation clause are dense but each earns its place; no filler or repeated schema 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 presence of an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential state-dependent behavior, side effects, and domain scope well. The only notable gap is the meaning of ItemId and what happens if calendar slot re-validation fails, but overall an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It semantically maps the parenthetical contents to five of the six params (Photos, Documents, OtherInfoComment, OnSiteResponsiblePerson, CreatorResponsiblePerson), which helps because the schema titles are de-normalized ('Onsiteresponsibleperson'). However, ItemId is never mentioned, and the structure of the Photos/Documents object arrays is left unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 and resource: 'Saves the other info step of a site equipment booking,' followed by a parenthetical enumerating the exact contents (creator/on-site responsible persons, photos, documents, comment). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like save_site_equipment_booking_info and save_site_equipment_transport_info, which cover different wizard steps.

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 provides clear contextual guidance about the state-dependent behavior (draft vs. already existing booking), which helps an agent understand when the tool finalizes creation versus updates a draft. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool versus related siblings (e.g., update_equipment_booking_from_mobile or the other wizard save steps), leaving tool-selection exclusions to inference.

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