Update A Job Title

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate non-read-only and non-destructive), the description adds behavioral details: it returns the updated job title, defaults company_id when omitted, and describes error payloads with common HTTP status codes. This gives the agent a clearer picture of side effects and failure handling.

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 moderately sized but tightly packed with useful details: purpose, prerequisite resolution, return value, failure modes, required parameters, and API endpoint. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return value (updated job title) and error behavior (HTTP status codes). It does not enumerate every parameter, but the schema fully covers them, so this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting that company_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, which is not in the schema, and by clarifying that job_title_id must reference an existing record. It also lists the required parameters, reinforcing the schema.

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 a Job Title' which is a specific verb+resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_a_job_title or delete_a_job_title. It also names the identifying parameters (company_id and job_title_id), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance: 'job_title_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' Also explains the company_id fallback to procore_set_config, giving clear context for when to use this tool. Does not explicitly mention alternatives for other operations, but the update purpose is obvious from the name.

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