Update Checklist (Inspection)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses partial-update semantics ('omitted fields keep their current values'), the return value ('Returns the modified checklist on success'), error payload structure with HTTP statuses, and the project_id default behavior. This adds substantial context and does not contradict the 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 dense but well-structured, with each sentence contributing: purpose, partial-update behavior, default, prerequisite, return, errors, and API reference. It's slightly verbose and includes some redundant information (required parameters) but remains efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description covers return type, error conditions, prerequisites, and parameter defaults, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly. The nested object's behavior is addressed via the 'send only fields you intend to change' instruction.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds semantic value beyond the schema: project_id defaults from procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record. It also identifies list as the body field to modify. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 'Updates a specified Checklist (Inspection)' with a specific verb and resource, and further clarifies via 'PATCH /rest/v1.1/...' and the parenthetical '(Inspection)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/delete/show checklist 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 a clear prerequisite: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first' and explains project_id defaulting from procore_set_config. It also mentions common error statuses. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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