Update Action Plan Section

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description provides substantial behavioral detail: partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), payload nesting ('they are nested under plan_section'), project_id defaulting from procore_set_config, and typical failure modes (401/403/404 errors). This adds significant context that annotations alone do not cover, making the tool's behavior highly transparent.

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 average but every sentence carries useful information: view behavior, partial update, payload nesting, id resolution, error handling, required parameters, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses bold formatting for the view section, making it scannable. Slightly verbose, but it earns its place.

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 lack of an output schema, the description compensates by stating that it returns the modified section on success and describes error payloads with common HTTP statuses. It covers required parameters, defaults, and id resolution. The only minor gap is that the 'ids' view option from the schema enum is not explained, and the set of updatable fields is implicitly limited to title (the only body field in the schema). Overall, it is quite complete for an update operation.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the view parameter's normal vs. extended output (including the nested plan_items array), clarifies that title is an updatable field, and notes that project_id defaults to the configured value. It also explains that record fields are top-level arguments but nested under 'plan_section' in the payload, which is 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 opens with 'Updates an Action Plan Section,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_action_plan_section, show_action_plan_section, and delete_action_plan_section. It also provides the endpoint and API area (Project Management > Action Plans) to further disambiguate.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: it updates an existing Action Plan Section and instructs the agent to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first.' It also explains the project_id default behavior and that omitted fields keep current values, which guides usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the prerequisite is clear.

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