Modify Markups

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds valuable behavior: partial update semantics ('send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, and a clear error mapping for 401/403/404. It also states the return value on success. This gives agents a solid model of side effects and failure modes.

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, information-dense paragraph with a logical flow: purpose → update semantics → defaults/prerequisites → return/errors → API reference. Every sentence adds value, though 'Required parameters: company_id, project_id, viewer_doc_id, markups' partially duplicates the schema's required list and could be omitted without loss. Still, it remains efficient and well-structured.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description covers the critical ground: prerequisites, defaults, return value, common HTTP error statuses, and the endpoint. It does not explicitly state that the markups parameter is an array of markup objects to be modified (the schema only says 'array'), which could leave some ambiguity for batch vs. single update. Overall, it is quite complete for an update tool.

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 enriches this by explaining partial-update semantics for markups, default behavior for company_id/project_id, and the requirement to resolve viewer_doc_id first. The markups parameter itself is still somewhat open ('JSON request body field'), but the description compensates with the field-level behavior.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Modifies existing markups for a specific company, project, and document.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_a_new_markup or remove_an_existing_markup, and the plural 'markups' differentiates it from modify_an_existing_markup. The endpoint and markups array confirm batch update semantics.

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 provides a concrete prerequisite: viewer_doc_id must identify an existing parent record, resolved via 'the matching list tool first.' It also notes that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, giving contextual guidance on when omission is acceptable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like add_a_new_markup or remove_an_existing_markup for create/delete scenarios, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.

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