Update BIM Model

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: partial-update semantics, return payload ('Returns the modified BIM model on success'), and a detailed failure mode breakdown ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). This is exactly the operational nuance an agent needs, and it complements rather than contradicts the readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint.

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. It front-loads the core action and partial-update rule, then covers id resolution, return value, error codes, required parameters, and API endpoint in a logical sequence. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, striking an ideal balance for an API operation.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the HTTP method, endpoint, required parameters, the resolution of the id via a list tool, return value, and common error statuses. For a tool with three parameters and nested objects, this is complete. The sibling list is large, but the description's self-contained guidance is sufficient 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by naming required parameters, clarifying the role of 'id' ('must identify an existing parent record'), and explaining that 'bim_model' represents only the fields to change. However, it stops short of describing the internal structure of the bim_model object—the schema entry for that field is tautological ('the bim model for this BIM operation'). Still, the description meaningfully supplements the schema with update-specific semantics.

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 a BIM Model item'—a specific verb+resource pair clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_bim_model, show_bim_model, and delete_bim_model. It also includes the API endpoint and product area ('Procore API: Preconstruction > BIM'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit operational guidance: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells agents when and how to use the tool, including a prerequisite (use the list tool) and a partial-update strategy. It also preempts common misuses by describing required parameters and error conditions.

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