Sync Project Insurances

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

Beyond the annotation hints, the description adds critical behavior: partial update semantics, project_id defaulting to a configured value, success return of the modified insurance, and common failure HTTP statuses (401/403/404). This gives the agent a clear model of what to expect, far exceeding the annotation-only baseline.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs substantial behavioral information into a compact block. It includes a redundant 'Required parameters' line that duplicates the schema, but the overall length is reasonable given the operational detail.

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 covers what the tool does, how parameters behave, what a successful response looks like, and the likely error codes. The main omission is the structure of each item in the updates array, which is not in the schema either, leaving the agent without enough information to construct a fully valid payload.

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 already provides basic descriptions for project_id and updates, and the description enriches them by explaining that omitted fields retain their current values and that project_id can default to the configured project. However, it does not describe the item structure within the updates array (the schema uses an empty items schema), which is a notable gap.

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 begins with 'Creates or updates a batch of Project Insurances,' which names the specific operation and resource. This batch scope clearly distinguishes it from single-operation siblings like create_project_insurance and update_project_insurance. The endpoint reference further confirms it is a sync (PATCH) action.

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 implies the tool is for batch create/update operations but never contrasts it with single-item alternatives. It offers operational guidance—'Send only the fields you intend to change' and 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config'—but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations. Usage context is present but not fully explicit, warranting a 3.

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