Update A Single Project

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, including default ID resolution, return of the updated project, and common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). These details are critical for an agent to handle failures. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false).

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 concise but contains a typo ('Updats'), repeats the required parameters already in the schema, and includes lengthy error and endpoint details that could be trimmed. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the structure meanders through defaults, returns, errors, and API references.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return value and error behavior, which is essential. However, it does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, or note conditional requirements like start_date being required when status is active (though that is in the schema). Adequate for a 10-parameter mutation tool but not fully complete.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds value by noting the defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id, but otherwise repeats the required parameter list already present in the schema. This is baseline adequate for a high-coverage 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 clearly states the tool updates a single project using company ID, project ID, and body params, and mentions it returns the updated project. It distinguishes from some siblings via the API endpoint reference, but does not explicitly name alternatives like 'update_project'. A typo ('Updats') slightly detracts.

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 useful context about default values for company_id and project_id from procore_set_config and lists required parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of other update tools, such as 'update_project' or 'update_a_single_resource_request'. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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