Syncs Materials

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

Beyond annotations (not read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description discloses critical behaviors: max 1000 entities per request with 413 response, partial update semantics, defaulting of company/project IDs, success returns the modified sync material, and detailed common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context that complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 every sentence adds value: purpose, limits, partial update guidance, defaults, return value, error handling, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a sync tool without an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how to scope the request, limits, partial update behavior, defaults, success/failure responses, and API version/path. It even provides external documentation link for deeper detail. Given the complexity, this is 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?

The schema covers only company_id and project_id with basic path-parameter descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics: they default to procore_set_config values when omitted. It also explains the conceptual body usage ('identified using either ids or origin_ids', 'send only the fields you intend to change'), which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the schema, though it stops short of listing the exact body fields.

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 the tool 'Creates or updates Materials identified using either ids or origin_ids', which is a specific verb+resource+identification method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_materials, create_material, or update_material by framing it as a sync/upsert action for multiple entities.

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 clear usage context: it explains the sync action nature, the 1000-entity limit, and the partial-update behavior ('omitted fields keep their current values'). It also notes default values for company_id and project_id from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like bulk_create_materials or bulk_update_materials, though the sync concept implies batch upsert.

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