Update A WBS Code

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: PATCH semantics (omitted fields keep current values), project_id defaulting behavior, the requirement that id already exists, the success return value, and common error statuses (401/403/404). This is rich disclosure with no contradiction to the provided 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 logically structured: action, update semantics, prerequisites, return/error behavior, then required params and API endpoint. Every sentence carries useful information, though it is somewhat long and the explicit 'Required parameters: project_id, id' repeats schema data without adding new value.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values ('Returns the modified WBS code') and error handling (HTTP status meanings). It also provides the API section and endpoint, contextualizes the workflow with the list-tool prerequisite, and explains the project_id default — making the tool self-sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

Even though the schema has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds meaning beyond field-level definitions: it clarifies that project_id can be omitted to use a configured default despite being marked required, that id must be an existing record resolved beforehand, and that only fields intended to change need to be sent. This adds practical usage semantics.

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 'Update a WBS Code with new custom description or status' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like list_wbs_codes or bulk_update_wbs_codes by focusing on a single record update with specific editable fields.

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 guidance: send only changed fields, project_id defaults from procore_set_config, and the id must be resolved with the matching list tool first. It implicitly excludes bulk operations by describing a single-record PATCH, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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