Update BIM Plan

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the PATCH semantics of partial updates, return value, and detailed error scenarios including 401/403/404 statuses. It also tells the agent to resolve the id with the list tool, and notes the required parameters. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior and failure modes.

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 efficient: it front-loads the purpose, then gives the update semantics, prerequisites, return, errors, required params, and API location. Every sentence conveys essential information without repetition. The structure flows logically from action to execution details.

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 this is a PATCH update without an output schema, the description adequately covers all critical aspects: what the tool does, how to use it (partial update, resolve id first), what it returns, and possible errors. The required-params listing and endpoint reference make it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the partial update pattern ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), which clarifies that id, project_id, and bim_plan are the minimum required but not necessarily all fields to send. It also reinforces the id parameter's meaning by saying it must identify an existing parent record. However, it does not elaborate on the semantic content of bim_plan beyond the schema.

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 single BIM Plan item', using a specific verb (Update) and resource (BIM Plan), and backs it with the PATCH endpoint and required id/parent reference. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_bim_plan, delete_bim_plan, or list_bim_plans. The mention of 'existing parent record' further anchors it as a modification tool.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first', guiding the agent to retrieve a valid id before calling. It also differentiates the operation by stating omitted fields keep current values, implying partial update rather than full replacement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for creation or deletion, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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