Update A PDF Template Config

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

The description richly supplements the annotations. It discloses partial-update semantics (omitted fields keep values), payload nesting, company_id defaulting, return value, and specific HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404) with causes. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations and contains no contradictions.

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?

Although multi-sentence, every sentence delivers essential operational detail (usage, defaults, error handling, endpoint). There is no redundant or filler text, and the most critical info (updates existing config) appears first.

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 an update tool with 6 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial-update behavior, parameter guidance, return value, error scenarios, and API endpoint. It fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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%, but the description adds substantial value: it explains the partial-update behavior, that body fields should be passed top-level and will be wrapped in 'pdf_template_config', and clarifies company_id defaulting and id resolution. This meaningfully extends 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Updates an existing PDF template config for the specified Procore company.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling list/create/delete tools by focusing on updating an existing record and includes the exact endpoint. The scope and action are 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?

Explicitly instructs to send only fields to change and to resolve the id with the matching list tool first. It also explains the company_id default from procore_set_config and notes required parameters. These are clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidelines, though it does not mention versioned alternatives.

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