Toggle Checklist Section Not Applicable Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating that only supplied fields are changed and that it returns the modified object. It does not disclose any additional traits such as side effects, permissions, or error behavior, which is needed given the lack of annotation detail.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the action. It includes the required parameters and Procore API endpoint, which is somewhat extraneous for an AI agent but not overly verbose. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the API path.

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?

Given that the tool has four required parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and required params but does not describe the return format or potential errors. It mentions 'returns the modified object' but without specifying the structure. This is adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description lists the required parameters but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the description offers no significant additional value for parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Toggles' and the specific resource 'Checklist Section Not Applicable status in a specified Checklist and Checklist Section.' It also mentions the tool updates an existing Inspections and returns the modified object. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool with a similar name (version 1.0.2).

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 'Use this to update an existing Inspections (only the supplied fields are changed),' which implies the context of toggling the not applicable status. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it.

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