Update A Time And Material Notification

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses partial-update behavior (omitted fields retain values), a default for project_id from procore_set_config, a success return value, and specific error scenarios with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This gives the agent a clear picture of runtime behavior and failure modes, which is more than the annotations alone provide.

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 a single dense paragraph but well-organized: purpose, partial update, payload nesting, default, return, errors, required param, and endpoint. The final 'Procore API: Project Management > Field Productivity' is arguably extraneous, but each other sentence contributes meaning. It could be split into bullet points for better scanability, but it is not wasteful.

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 12-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: how to update partially, what will be returned, and typical error conditions. It does not elaborate on every field's meaning, but the schema already provides placeholders. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that top-level arguments are actually nested under 'time_and_material_notification' in the request payload, and that project_id defaults to the configured value. These details are not visible in the schema and help the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 starts with 'Updating a Time And Material Notification associated with the specified project,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling create, delete, and show tools by naming the update action and the resource type. The partial-update guidance further clarifies its role as a modifier of existing records.

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 makes it clear this tool is for updating an existing notification: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (create/delete/show) leaves no ambiguity about when to use it. A named exclusion would push it to 5, but the current guidance is solid.

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