Bulk Update Contributing Behaviors

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, fields are nested under 'contributing_behavior' in the payload, it returns the modified behavior on success, and it details common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is rich transparency for a write operation.

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 long but every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, payload transformation, default, return, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Required parameters: company_id' sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 update with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, when to use it, how to pass parameters, default behavior, success return, error handling, and the exact API endpoint. No output schema exists, but the description states the return value, making the tool fully understandable.

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 adds meaning by explaining the company_id default and clarifying that record fields should be passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the request payload. This goes beyond the schema 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 states the specific action: 'Updates the active status of multiple contributing behaviors in a single request.' This identifies the verb (updates), resource (contributing behaviors), scope (active status), and batch nature (multiple in one request), clearly distinguishing it from single-record update tools.

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 says to prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many contributing behaviors at once. It implies when not to use it (single record) but does not name the alternative sibling tool, so it stops short of full explicit when/when-not guidance.

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