Sync Potential Change Orders

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with the write operation. The description adds context: batch operation, partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed'), and return of modified object. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 3-4 sentences but includes extraneous details like 'Procore API: ...' and a link that could be integrated. It is somewhat concise but not optimally front-loaded with essential info.

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 lacks details on the updates array structure, validation, and error handling. The return value is vaguely described as 'modified object'. Given the complexity of batch operations, more context is needed, though the link to sync actions documentation partially compensates.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description mentions required parameters but only slightly adds meaning by implying updates is a partial update object. It does not detail the structure of updates (e.g., array of objects with specific fields), so no significant value beyond 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 states that the tool 'creates or updates a batch of Potential Change Orders (PCO)', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, the second sentence focuses only on updating, creating a slight inconsistency. It distinguishes from siblings like sync_potential_change_order_line_items by resource type.

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 says to use this tool to update existing change orders but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., create_potential_change_order for single creates or update_potential_change_order for single updates). There is no mention of when not to use it or guidance on batch vs. single operations.

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