Update An Attachment'S Metadata

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses partial update behavior, default values from procore_set_config, return value on success, and common error payloads (401, 403, 404). This adds significant context about mutable state and error semantics, making the tool's behavior transparent even though annotations already indicate it's a non-destructive, idempotent write operation.

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 adds value: purpose, partial update rule, defaults, prerequisite, return/error behavior, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and the technical details are organized logically. Minor redundancy with schema (endpoint) is acceptable for reference, so not a 5 but still 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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: action, parameters, prerequisites, default values, return, and error handling. It even includes the API version and endpoint. The only omission is a description of the attachment fields themselves, but those are fully documented in the input schema, so the description is complete for selection and invocation.

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 parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3, but the description adds crucial semantics: partial update (only changed fields), default values for company_id/project_id, and explicit required parameters. It also clarifies the id parameter as referring to the shipment resource, complementing the schema. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Updates the metadata of an existing attachment on a shipment resource,' with concrete examples ('such as its description or name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling attachment tools by specifying the target resource (shipments) and the action (meta update), which aligns with the tool's name and title without ambiguity.

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 guidance on how to use the tool: partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), default behavior for company_id/project_id, and prerequisite ('id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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