Bulk Update Company Observation Templates

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable behavioral context: atomic rejection with a 422 before any template is written, the requirement that the Trade belongs to the Company, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). No contradiction exists with the annotations; the description significantly augments 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, atomicity, usage recommendation, payload wrapping, default behavior, return value, error handling, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly states that the modified template is returned and describes the error payload format. It also covers the required parameter, optional parameter defaults, atomic failure behavior, and the Procore API category/endpoint, making it fully self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description compensates by clarifying that trade_id is the only attribute changed, noting that fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested under observation_template in the payload, and explaining the company_id default. These are meaningful additions beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Sets the same Trade on several Company Observation Templates in one request.' It also provides the exact endpoint (PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/observation_templates/bulk_update), making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from repeated single-record calls.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many company observation templates at once.' It also states that trade_id is the only attribute changed, implicitly steering users away when other fields need updating. The default behavior for company_id via procore_set_config further clarifies invocation context.

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