Update A Single Resource Request

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics, error payload details with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and the default for company_id. Annotations only provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so this description meaningfully discloses behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense yet well-organized, front-loading the core action and then covering behavior, prerequisites, response, errors, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a tool with 14 parameters.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description covers key operational aspects: what the tool does, how it behaves (partial update), prerequisites, error handling, and the return value. It does not elaborate on the structure of the returned resource request, but given the rich schema and the description's other details, it is largely complete for agent use.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining the partial-update effect (only specified body fields are applied), the default behavior for company_id, and the requirement that request_id must reference an existing record. This goes beyond what the schema descriptions provide, justifying a 4.

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's purpose: 'Updates an existing Resource Request within a company.' It uses a specific verb ('updates') and resource ('Resource Request'), and the context of 'existing' differentiates it from create/delete siblings like 'create_a_resource_request_on_a_project' and 'delete_a_resource_request'.

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 the partial update behavior ('Only specified properties in the request body will be updated') and instructs the agent to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' before using this tool. It also notes company_id defaulting from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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