clm_site_equipment_command_update_equipment_status

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

The description explains the behavioral effect (toggling the Active flag) beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the specific state-change semantics without contradicting them.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core behavior.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return value documentation is not needed. However, the missing `ItemId` guidance and lack of explicit usage boundaries leave some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 for the parameters. It explains the meaning of `Active` but does not mention `ItemId`, which is essential for identifying the equipment record to update. This leaves a significant parameter gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Activates or deactivates'), a clear resource ('existing site equipment record'), and a concrete mechanism ('toggling its `Active` flag'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete equipment operations.

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 it is for changing the active status of an already-existing equipment record, which sets context against creation/deletion tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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