Sync Prime Contract Line Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description builds on this by adding error-payload specifics (401, 403, 404) and the success return value. It also implicitly signals idempotency via PATCH semantics. It doesn't disclose potential batch limits or whether new line items can be created, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar and this description adds value beyond it.

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 dense paragraph without filler. Every clause adds useful context: purpose, update semantics, prerequisite, return value, error cases, required parameters, and endpoint. It is not maximally concise due to the endpoint/API section, but that content is actionable for an agent, so it earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating it 'Returns the modified prime contract line item on success' and describing common failure modes. It covers prerequisites, partial updates, and required parameters. It could be more complete with batch size or limit information, but for the tool's complexity it is quite thorough.

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%, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds meaning to prime_contract_id ('must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first') and to updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), going beyond the raw 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 'Updates an existing prime contract line item in Procore', identifying the verb and resource. It also includes the specific endpoint and clarifies partial-update semantics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like update_prime_contract_line_item, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'prime_contract_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains the partial-update behavior ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'). It does not name alternative tools or state when to use sync vs update, which prevents a 5.

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