Bulk Update Specification Section Revisions

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing partial failure behavior ('individual entries can fail independently, so check each one'), error payload structure, common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and the config-defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id. This adds substantial context for invoking the tool safely.

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 well-organized: it leads with purpose, then usage guidance, followed by behavioral nuances, error handling, and ends with the API endpoint. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure maximizes scannability.

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 purpose, usage, failure modes, and required path parameters, but it omits the most essential detail for a bulk update endpoint: how to pass the records to update. With no output schema and no mention of a request body or array parameter, an agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool. This is a critical completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 100% for the two listed parameters, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds some extra meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, but it fails to specify how the actual specification section revisions are supplied—there is no mention of a request body or additional parameters, leaving a critical gap in understanding how to construct a valid call.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: 'bulk updates specification section revisions.' It also distinguishes itself from the single-record `update_specification_section_revision` sibling by saying 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls,' making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool: 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many specification section revisions at once.' This provides a clear usage criterion and explicitly directs away from the alternative, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' requirement.

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