Bulk Upsert LOV Codes

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent write, but the description adds error semantics (401/403/404), return value, and the company_id default from procore_set_config. This goes well beyond the annotation hints, giving the agent concrete expectations for failures and responses.

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 four sentences, each providing distinct value: action, usage preference, defaults, and error/return behavior. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids redundancy despite minor repetition of 'bulk upsert LOV codes.'

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?

Covers endpoint, error modes, return, defaults, and usage context. However, it never explains how to specify the actual LOV codes to upsert; the input schema only lists company_id and Accept-Language, leaving the core payload opaque. This is a significant gap for a tool whose purpose is bulk upserting codes.

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 covers both parameters, but the description adds that company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, a nuance not in the schema (which marks it required). This aids invocation. No additional detail for Accept-Language, but schema already documents it.

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 'Creates or updates naming standard LOV code mappings in bulk,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from repeated single-record calls and names the company scope, making it distinct from sibling project-level 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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer this over repeated single-record calls when handling many bulk upsert LOV codes at once,' giving a direct when-to-use instruction. It also explains the defaulting behavior for company_id, which clarifies context. No misguidance.

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