clm_site_equipment_command_upsert_unplanned_equipment

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

The description explicitly discloses important side effects beyond the annotations: on create and update it rebuilds the equipment timeline entry, assigns a booking number, and logs an event. This is meaningful behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from idempotentHint or destructiveHint.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the side effects are listed compactly in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers purpose and side effects well, and the output schema supplies return-value information. However, the seven-field input schema is largely undocumented, and the create-vs-update discriminator is not explained, leaving a meaningful gap 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. The phrase 'usage/price/slot data' loosely maps to TotalUsagesInMinute, ActualPricePerNoOfUnit, and ActualNumberOfSlot, but ItemId, EquipmentId, MaterialHandoverId, and Note are not explained. The agent also cannot tell which field identifies the existing record for an update.

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 names the specific resource ('unplanned equipment usage record attached to a material handover') and states the exact action (create or update). It clearly distinguishes this tool from planned-equipment and other equipment-usage siblings.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when creating or updating unplanned equipment usage data such as usage, price, or slot information for a material handover. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is evident.

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