Update BIM File

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds essential behavior: partial update semantics, success return, and detailed error scenarios (401, 403, 404). This gives agents a strong picture of runtime behavior, auth needs, and error handling.

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 efficient, covering action, partial update semantics, id resolution, return value, error codes, and API location in ~120 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and every sentence earns its place, though the 'Required parameters' list is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 reasonably covers success and failure returns, id resolution, and partial update semantics. It doesn't detail the structure of the modified BIM file, but mentions its return. Given the tool's complexity, this is adequate but not exhaustive; adding explicit notes about the BIM file object shape would improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates required parameters but adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions (e.g., 'id must identify an existing parent record' echoes the schema's 'unique identifier'). It doesn't explain the structure of the bim_file object beyond what the schema already says.

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 action ('Updates an existing BIM file in Procore') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'existing' and providing the exact endpoint (PATCH), making it unambiguous vs create/list/delete operations.

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 clear context: 'Send only the fields you intend to change' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This effectively tells when to use the tool and prerequisites, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_bim_file or other alternatives beyond mentioning the list tool.

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