Update Affliction Type

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed and returns the modified object on success, which provides useful behavioral context. However, it does not discuss authorization requirements or error states beyond the basic update behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs all necessary information into a few sentences without any fluff. Every sentence adds value, including the note about Procore provided types and the return 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?

The description includes the API endpoint, product area, and return behavior, making it fairly complete for an update operation. It could mention error handling or validation, but given the complexity and no output schema, it covers the essential aspects.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context that the 'name' parameter cannot be changed for Procore provided types, which goes beyond the schema's basic description. This extra information helps the agent understand parameter constraints.

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 specified Affliction Type', specifying the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_update_affliction_types by noting the single update and the restriction on Procore provided names.

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 context: use to update existing affliction types, with the caveat that Procore provided names cannot be changed. It also mentions that only supplied fields are changed. However, it does not explicitly compare to the bulk update tool or specify when not to use.

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