Bulk Update Timecard Entries

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses return values ('Returns the modified timecard entry on success'), error handling (HTTP statuses 401/403/404), and the default behavior for company_id. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). While it doesn't cover atomicity or partial failure details, it provides solid transparency for a mutating bulk operation.

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 a single paragraph of five sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, use case, default behavior, return value, error patterns, and required parameters. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids fluff or repetition of schema details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex bulk update tool with 22 parameters, the description covers usage context, default, return, and errors. However, it fails to explain the structure of the 'updates' payload, which is the core of a bulk update operation. Since the schema's items object is empty and no output schema exists, this is a significant gap. The description is otherwise strong, but this missing detail holds it back.

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 stating required parameters and the company_id default from procore_set_config. However, the crucial 'updates' parameter — an array with empty item schema — is not clarified in the description; it merely repeats that it is required, leaving the structure of each update item ambiguous. This is a missed opportunity to add meaning 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?

The description opens with 'Updates multiple timecard entries at the same time,' clearly specifying the verb, resource, and batching scope. It distinguishes itself from single-record alternatives by stating 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls,' making the purpose unambiguous even among closely named siblings like update_timecard_entry.

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 says to prefer this tool over repeated single-record calls when handling many timecard entries at once, which is solid when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name the single-record tool, but the alternative is clearly implied. It also adds contextual detail about company_id defaulting, which aids in usage decisions.

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