Update Action Plan Item Assignee

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it 'returns the modified object on success' and mentions partial updates ('only the supplied fields are changed'), which provides some extra behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond what annotations offer.

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 three sentences and front-loads the main purpose. The second sentence 'Use this to update an existing Action Plans (only the supplied fields are changed)' is slightly redundant but still useful. The inclusion of API details (Procore API, endpoint) is informative but adds length. Overall, it is reasonably concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers purpose, usage context, and required parameters. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned modified object, potential error conditions, or the behavior when optional parameters are omitted. These gaps leave the description somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the fact that 'project_id' and 'id' are required (already in schema required list). The description mentions required parameters but adds no additional semantic value.

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 'Updates a single Action Plan Item Assignee' and specifies it updates an existing item. It distinguishes from its sibling 'bulk_update_action_plan_item_assignees' by noting 'single', but does not explicitly differentiate from other related siblings like 'create_action_plan_item_assignee'. The verb and resource are specific and clear.

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 context for when to use the tool: to update an existing Action Plan Item Assignee with only the supplied fields changed. It also lists required parameters ('project_id, id'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as bulk operations.

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