Batch Update Generic Tool Items

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses partial-update semantics (omitted fields preserved), return payload details, common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404), and the project_id defaulting behavior from procore_set_config. These provide substantial behavioral context.

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 dense but well-organized, opening with purpose and then layering usage, defaults, return/error behavior, required parameters, and API context. The documentation link and endpoint are useful additions. While somewhat long, each sentence contributes information without redundancy.

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?

For a batch update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, partial-update behavior, return value, error codes, defaults, and required parameters. The main gap is the lack of detail on the structure of generic_tool_items, but overall it is quite complete for the tool's 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds meaningful extra context for project_id (defaults to procore_set_config value) and generic_tool_id (must be resolved via list tool), elevating it above the baseline. However, it doesn't elaborate on the internal structure of the generic_tool_items array, which remains vague in the schema.

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 clearly states 'Update all selected Generic Tool Items' with a specific verb and resource scope, distinguishing it from single-item update and list tools. It also provides the exact endpoint (PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/generic_tools/{generic_tool_id}/generic_tool_items), which reinforces its batch-update purpose.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: only send fields to change, omitted fields keep values, and generic_tool_id must be resolved with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly contrast with single-item update_generic_tool_item or create_generic_tool_item, but the batch context and prerequisites are clear.

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