Update A Company Action Plan Template

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true), the description discloses significant behavior: partial-field update semantics, company_id defaulting to procore_set_config, return value (modified template), and error-payload HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). These details help the agent anticipate outcomes and troubleshoot failures, which is exactly what behavioral transparency requires.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes value: purpose, partial-update guidance, payload nesting, defaulting, id resolution, return value, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically. Slight lengthiness prevents a 5, but there is no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation, defaulting, error cases) and the lack of an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: what it does, how to use it (partial update, resolve id via list), what to expect (return of modified template), and how failures manifest (error payload with HTTP statuses). It even includes the API endpoint and category, making the tool self-contained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that record fields are nested under 'plan_template' in the request payload but passed as top-level arguments, and that company_id defaults to the configured value. This reduces ambiguity for the agent when constructing the call.

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 opens with 'Updates an existing company action plan template for the specified Procore company,' clearly stating the action (updates) and the resource (existing company action plan template). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create or list by specifying 'existing' and 'updates.'

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 partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') and directs the agent to resolve the id with a list tool first. It does not explicitly exclude creation scenarios, but the 'existing parent record' requirement and the presence of sibling create/list tools make the intended use clear.

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