Update Bid Form

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, etc.), the description discloses partial-update semantics, config-based defaulting, required parent record existence, return value (modified bid form), and common HTTP error codes (401/403/404). This is rich behavioral context that the annotations don't provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, partial update rule, config default, prerequisite resolution, return type, error behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most actionable information.

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 a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: what it returns, how failures surface, and which IDs must exist. However, the array parameters (base_bid and alternates) have empty item schemas and the description does not elaborate on their expected structure, leaving a potential gap for complex updates.

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?

While the schema provides 100% coverage of parameter names and locations, the description adds meaningful semantics: project_id can be omitted and defaults from config, bid_package_id and bid_form_id must point to existing records, and title is the minimum required field. It doesn't detail the nested array structures (base_bid, alternates), but it compensates for the schema's minimal descriptions with practical invocation details.

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 'Update single Bid Form,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_bid_package and update_a_bid_from_a_bid_package. It also provides the exact PATCH endpoint, reinforcing its unique 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?

The description explicitly says to send only changed fields, explains that project_id defaults to procore_set_config, and instructs to resolve bid_package_id and bid_form_id with the matching list tool first. This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance beyond generic update operations.

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