Update Change Order Package

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 partial-update behavior, return value on success, and specific HTTP error statuses with their meanings (401, 403, 404). This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without contradicting annotations.

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 information-dense but well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then logically covering prerequisites, return behavior, errors, required parameters, and endpoint details. No sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 mutation tool with an open-world nested change_order object and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it updates, how partial updates work, id resolution, return value, and error handling. It leaves change_order field details to the API domain, which is acceptable given additionalProperties: true.

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 already covers all four parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by identifying id as a URL path parameter that must reference an existing parent record, and by clarifying that the change_order object supports partial updates.

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 'Updates an existing change order package in Procore,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from create and list siblings by emphasizing 'existing' and providing the PATCH endpoint, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, providing a clear prerequisite and an alternative. It also explains partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), which tells the agent when and how to invoke it.

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