Update A Task Item Comment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses partial-update semantics, defaulting of company/project IDs, the returned object, and common failure modes (401, 403, 404). These details are highly relevant for an agent to predict tool behavior and handle errors. No contradiction with 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 but every sentence contributes value: action, usage, return, error handling, and endpoint. It is organized logically and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 a 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return value, error handling, prerequisites, and defaulting. Combined with the schema's field-level details, the agent has enough information 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?

The schema already covers all 13 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial behavior: omitted fields keep current values, fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the payload, and defaults for company/project. This meaningfully enriches understanding beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Updates the task item comment'), identifies the specific resource (via path ID), and provides the exact endpoint. It also mentions the return value, which distinguishes it from create/delete siblings in the same domain.

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 gives explicit guidance: resolve the id with the matching list tool first, and explains that company_id/project_id default from procore_set_config. It also advises partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., create/delete) for when to use this tool instead.

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