Bulk Update Work Activities

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

The description discloses failure behaviors with specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and mentions the default behavior for company_id. It also states the return value (modified work activity). This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, which already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, without contradicting them.

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-structured, front-loading the core purpose and usage preference. It is slightly dense with additional API/endpoint details, but each sentence earns its place by providing necessary invocation context. No unnecessary fluff.

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, parameter mapping, defaults, returns, and error handling. It lacks a clear statement that 'active' is the only mutable field and implies 'ids' must be provided for a meaningful bulk update. Given the absence of an output schema, the return-value mention is useful, but the parameter invocation could be more explicit.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds helpful semantic context by explaining that record fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'work_activity' in the request payload, and that company_id defaults from procore_set_config. However, it doesn't elaborate on the 'ids' or 'active' parameters beyond their terse schema descriptions.

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 the action: 'Update multiple Work Activities with one request.' It specifies the resource (Work Activities) and the scope (multiple), and distinguishes itself from single-record calls by explicitly recommending it over repeated single-record calls. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_work_activity.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over repeated single-record calls when handling many work activities at once, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also provides context on the company_id default from procore_set_config, which helps the agent understand configuration prerequisites.

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