Bulk Update Incident Action Types

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that it performs a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed') and returns the modified object. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The openWorldHint suggests unknown side effects, which are not addressed.

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 relatively concise (3 sentences) but includes redundant API endpoint and category info ('Procore API: Project Management > Incidents. Endpoint: ...') that is not essential for tool selection. The inconsistency between 'Action Types' and 'Incidents' detracts from clarity.

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 no output schema and only 3 parameters, the description covers the basic functionality: purpose, partial update, and required parameter. However, it omits important context for a bulk update, such as batch size limits, error handling, and the expected format of the 'ids' parameter. The completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description only mentions that company_id is required, adding no further explanation. Baseline score of 3 applies since schema handles the parameter meaning.

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 'Update multiple Incident Action Types with one request,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it later refers to 'Incidents' instead of 'Incident Action Types,' causing slight confusion. It does not explicitly distinguish from the singular update tool, but the bulk aspect is clear.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'Use this to update an existing Incidents (only the supplied fields are changed).' It does not specify when to use this bulk update versus the individual update endpoint, nor does it give any exclusions or alternatives.

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