Update App Configuration

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses partial-update semantics, error payloads with common HTTP statuses, and that the modified configuration is returned. However, the note that company_id 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' conflicts with the schema's required marker, which could mislead agents about whether it is actually optional.

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 dense but logically organized: action, partial-update semantics, default behavior, id resolution, return value, error handling, required params, then API reference. Each sentence adds value, though the company_id default sentence might be misplaced or redundant given the required-parameter note.

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 seven parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description still covers return value, error behavior, endpoint, and a resolution step. It does not fully explain the nested instance_configuration field, but the schema already describes it, so the description's coverage is solid for practical 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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all seven parameters, and the description adds useful context about PATCH behavior (send only changed fields) and id/company_id roles. But the conflicting statement that company_id can be omitted while the schema marks it required undermines clarity, so it only partially compensates for the schema's existing detail.

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 'Change the configuration of an existing app configuration', which clearly states the verb (change), resource (app configuration), and scope (existing). It distinguishes this tool from sibling create, show, list, and delete tools by emphasizing 'existing' and 'change' rather than creation or retrieval.

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 usage context: resolve the id with the matching list tool first, and send only changed fields for partial updates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'existing' phrasing and id-resolution requirement effectively communicate when this tool is appropriate.

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