Bulk Update Contributing Conditions

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: company_id defaulting to procore_set_config, the payload nesting detail, return value, and detailed failure modes ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). This adds substantial context beyond the structured hints.

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 a bit longer than the minimal example but each sentence contributes meaningful information. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by parameter handling, defaults, return, and errors. The 'Required parameters: company_id' line is redundant with the schema but not harmful.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters behave, and what to expect on success and failure. It also includes API metadata (Endpoint, Procore API section). Minor missing details like the exact type of ids are inferable from context.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested under 'contributing_condition' in the payload, and that company_id has a default from procore_set_config. This goes beyond the schema's generic 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 clearly states it 'Updates the active status of multiple contributing conditions in a single request,' which specifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this bulk operation from single-record updates by explicitly mentioning 'multiple' and contrasting with '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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many contributing conditions at once.' It gives a clear when-to-use scenario, though it does not name the specific sibling tool (e.g., update_contributing_condition) for single updates, leaving that inference to the agent.

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