Bulk Update Materials

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description discloses the defaulting behavior for project_id, success return value, and failure semantics with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting any 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?

The description is dense but organized, front-loading the core purpose and usage guidance. It covers defaults, return, errors, and endpoint in a compact structure, though it slightly redundantly restates the required parameters already present in the schema.

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?

For a two-parameter bulk operation with no output schema and adequate annotations, the description is quite complete: it defines the operation, when to use it, parameter defaults, success return, and error handling. It omits details about the array item structure, but that gap exists in the schema as well.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, and it reinforces that time_and_material_materials is an array of Material objects, providing practical parameter context beyond 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?

The description begins with 'Bulk update Material entries with one request,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also contrasts with 'repeated single-record calls,' clearly distinguishing this bulk operation from sibling update_material 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 instructs to 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many materials at once,' providing direct when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative. It also notes the project_id default from procore_set_config, adding context for invocation.

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