Sync Company Users

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 substantial behavioral context: required permissions, ISO-3166 country/state code constraints, partial-update behavior, company_id defaulting behavior, return value, and common error HTTP statuses. This is far more than annotations alone provide.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then covering permissions, field codes, update behavior, defaults, return value, and errors. The markdown subheading for country/state codes is a minor formatting artifact, and the text is longer than ideal but each sentence carries useful information.

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 tool is complex (batch sync, no output schema, no enums), and the description covers permissions, parameter semantics, error handling, and return value. It provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly. The internal company_id contradiction and lack of detailed updates array structure prevent a perfect score.

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?

The schema descriptions are thin, especially for 'updates' which is described only as 'JSON request body field.' The description adds meaningful context about partial updates and ISO code requirements. However, it contains an internal contradiction: it says 'company_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' while also listing company_id as a required parameter, and the schema marks it required. This ambiguity undermines the semantic guidance.

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 first sentence clearly states 'creates or updates a batch of Company Users,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from single-user tools like create_company_user and update_company_user, and from non-sync list 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?

The description indicates this is for batch operations and provides partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'). It also notes Directory Admin permissions and links to 'Using Sync Actions' documentation. However, it does not name explicit alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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