Add Company Checklist Template Alternative Response Set

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint false). The description adds that it 'returns the modified object on success.' This is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations present, the description adds marginal value beyond the structured data.

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 moderately concise but includes redundancies like 'only the supplied fields are changed' (redundant for a PATCH) and API reference details. Some sentences (e.g., 'Procore API: ...') add context but could be structured more efficiently.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only states 'returns the modified object' without specifying which fields are included. The inconsistency between 'template' and 'inspections' further undermines completeness. For a simple update tool, the description leaves ambiguity about the return structure.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing each parameter (id, company_id, alternative_response_set_id) clearly. The description lists the required parameters but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Hence, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it sets a Company Checklist Template's Response Set, which is clear. However, it also says 'Use this to update an existing Inspections,' creating confusion about whether this tool applies to templates or inspections. This inconsistency lowers clarity from a 4 to a 3.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'add_checklist_template_alternative_response_set' (project-level) or 'remove_company_checklist_template_alternative_response_set'. The phrase 'Use this to update an existing Inspections' is misleading and does not accurately differentiate usage contexts.

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