Update Actual Production Quantity

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

Discloses partial-update semantics (omitted fields keep current values), defaulting behavior for project_id, prerequisite lookup for id, and specific error status meanings (401, 403, 404). This goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare readOnly=false and idempotentHint=true, and provides actionable behavioral context.

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 information-dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, partial-update behavior, defaults, id resolution, return value, error handling, required params, and API context. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and reads as a well-organized single paragraph without redundancy.

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 an update tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return value, prerequisites, defaults, error codes, endpoint, and parameter behavior, leaving an agent fully equipped to invoke the tool correctly. The high schema coverage is complemented rather than relied upon.

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 the schema already describes each parameter, the description adds crucial semantic value: it explains that fields are sent as top-level arguments but nested under 'actual_production_quantity' in the payload, and highlights which parameters are required and how project_id defaults. This is exactly the kind of meaning that helps an 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update Actual Production Quantity associated with the specific Project.' It clearly distinguishes this update operation from sibling tools like create/delete/list actual production quantities, and the endpoint path reinforces the exact scope.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: send only fields to change, project_id defaults from procore_set_config, resolve id with the matching list tool first. It also clarifies required parameters and failure modes, giving an agent clear when/how guidance without needing to infer from the schema alone.

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