Update Action Plan Item Assignee

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, explaining partial update semantics (omitted fields keep values), the payload nesting behavior, the project_id default from procore_set_config, the requirement to resolve id first, the return value, and common HTTP error codes. This fully discloses the tool's behavior and failure modes.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence earns its place—covering update semantics, defaults, id resolution, return value, errors, and API context. It is structured logically and front-loaded with the primary action. Could be slightly tightened, but no wasted content.

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 fully covers what the agent needs: the return value, error handling, required parameters, id resolution, default behavior, and API context. It is comprehensive for a mutation tool, leaving no critical gaps.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical meaning by explaining that fields are sent top-level but nested as 'plan_item_assignee' in the request, that project_id defaults from config, and that id must refer to an existing record found via a list tool. These details are not obvious from the schema alone.

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 'Updates a single Action Plan Item Assignee' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from bulk operations by emphasizing 'single', but does not explicitly mention alternatives like create or bulk_update. Thus it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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: updating an existing assignee, sending only fields to change, and resolving id with a list tool first. It also explains project_id defaults. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for create/bulk operations.

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