Update A Drawing Area

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

It discloses PATCH semantics (omitted fields keep current values), return value (modified drawing area), and error behavior (HTTP status codes for common failures). These details go beyond the annotations, which only convey readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: main action, partial update, defaults, id resolution, return value, error handling, required params, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects: operation, parameter defaults, id resolution, return value, and error handling. With no output schema, it explains the response, and it provides the endpoint and API version for reference.

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?

While schema provides 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, the description adds crucial semantics: partial update behavior for body fields, default for project_id, and the requirement that id refer to an existing record. This enriches the schema by explaining how parameters behave.

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 starts with 'Update an existing Drawing Area in the specified Project,' which is a specific verb (Update), resource (Drawing Area), and scope (Project). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_drawing_area, delete_a_drawing_area, and list_drawing_areas.

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?

It provides explicit guidance to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, explains that project_id defaults to procore_set_config, and states required parameters. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, including how to prepare inputs.

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