Bulk Update Field Rules (Project Scope)

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses independent per-item validation, per-item success/failure reporting, return of modified field rules, and specific error status codes (401, 403, 404). It also explains defaulting from procore_set_config, adding valuable behavioral context not present in structured data.

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 contributes: purpose, per-item behavior, preference guidance, defaults, return semantics, error codes, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

While the description explains return values, error payloads, and defaults, it fails to specify how to provide the multiple field-rule items (e.g., an array with rule_id). The input schema lists only company_id, project_id, and Accept-Language, so an agent cannot correctly construct a bulk-update request from the given information.

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% for the three listed parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds default behavior for company_id/project_id, which helps, but it refers to 'each item' carrying a rule_id without explaining how these items are passed in the request, creating confusion given the schema has no such parameter.

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 and resource: 'Updates multiple project-scoped field rules in a single request.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from single-record updates and bulk creation by emphasizing project scope and the bulk-update action.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many field rules at once.' It also notes defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use this tool.

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