Bulk Update Field Rules

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

Beyond the annotations, the description details per-item validation, independent success/failure reporting, the defaulting behavior of company_id from procore_set_config, return value on success, and common HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404). This gives the agent a strong sense of expected behavior and failure modes. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, then efficiently provides usage context, default behavior, return values, error handling, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds meaningful information without fluff, balancing thoroughness with readability.

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?

The description covers many behavioral and error aspects, and includes return value information despite no output schema. The major gap is the absence of instructions on how to structure the field rule updates (the request body), which is critical for invocation. Given the tool's complexity and minimal schema, the description is adequate but misses this key detail.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, and the description adds the default behavior for company_id. However, the description references 'each item carries its own rule_id' but never specifies how to provide the field rules in the request body, an essential omission given the schema lacks an items parameter. Schema coverage is 100% only because the schema itself is missing the core payload, so the description does not fully compensate.

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 'Updates multiple field rules in a single request,' identifying the verb, resource, and batch nature. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the bulk aspect and company scope via company_id and the endpoint URL, avoiding confusion with single-record or project-scoped 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 recommends this tool 'over repeated single-record calls when handling many field rules at once,' providing a clear usage context and an alternative. It does not explicitly mention exclusions like the project-scoped variant, but the company_id context and 'prefer this' phrasing give adequate guidance.

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