Bulk Edit Specification Sections

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

The description goes beyond the basic annotations by disclosing that individual entries can fail independently and that failures return an error payload with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also explains that all records are processed in a single request and the collection is returned. This provides useful behavioral context consistent with the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations.

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. It leads with the purpose, then usage, then behavior and error handling, then parameters and endpoint. Each sentence contributes practical information, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 bulk edit tool with no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, usage preference, default behavior, partial failure handling, error codes, required parameters, and API endpoint. However, it omits details about the free-form request body objects (specification_sections, specification_section_revisions), which are part of the input schema and could affect successful 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but the descriptions are terse (e.g., 'JSON request body field — specification_sections'). The tool description adds the note that company_id and project_id default to values set by procore_set_config, which is useful. However, it does not explain the structure or content of the specification_sections and specification_section_revisions objects, leaving their semantics unclear. The required parameter list repeats schema information.

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 the tool performs bulk editing of specification sections. It also provides usage guidance to prefer it over repeated single-record calls, which distinguishes its intended scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related sibling tools such as bulk_update_specification_section_revisions, and the relationship between 'specification sections' and 'specification_section_revisions' is not clarified.

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 explicitly states 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many bulk edit specification sections at once,' giving clear when-to-use context. It also notes that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, which helps in context. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives beyond the generic single-record call reference.

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