Bulk Update Hazards

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: nested payload arguments passed as top-level, company_id defaulting from procore_set_config, return value on success, and specific HTTP error codes (401/403/404). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Seven sentences, each adding distinct information: function, batch guidance, payload handling, defaulting, return value, error modes, required params, API reference, and endpoint. No filler; well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value ('Returns the modified hazard on success') and failure formats. It covers defaulting, required parameters, endpoint, and error codes, making it fully self-contained for an agent.

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 covers all three parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and clarifies that ids/active are top-level arguments despite being nested under 'hazard' in the payload, enriching beyond the schema.

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?

Description opens with 'Updates the active status for multiple hazards in a single request' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes from single-record update siblings by emphasizing batch operation and 'multiple hazards in a single request.'

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?

Explicitly advises 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many hazards at once,' giving a clear when-to-use criterion. It does not name a specific sibling tool like update_hazard, but the behavioral alternative is clearly implied.

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