Update Classification

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

This description richly supplements annotations. Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true), it discloses PATCH semantics ('omitted fields keep their current values'), payload nesting ('nested under work_classification'), the company_id default from procore_set_config, return behavior ('Returns the modified classification'), and common error statuses. No contradictions with 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 yet well-structured, front-loaded with the core action, then behavioral details, then error handling and endpoint. Every sentence adds value without superfluous text; it is concise given the complexity.

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?

The description covers prerequisites (id resolution via list tool), optional vs required fields, return value, error statuses, default config behavior, API path, and admin context. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately compensates with detailed result and error information.

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%, but description adds meaning: optional fields and PATCH behavior, payload nesting, company_id fallback, and id resolution. However, there is an inconsistency: schema marks company_id as required while description says it 'defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' though the description later lists company_id as required. This reduces clarity, so not a 5.

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 an existing classification for the specified Procore company,' specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like create_classification and delete_classification by requiring an existing id and mentioning 'update_all_classification' implicitly through the singular 'existing classification.'

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 provides clear context: 'Send only the fields you intend to change,' 'resolve it with the matching list tool first,' and enumerates failure scenarios (401, 403, 404). It does not explicitly name alternatives like update_all_classification or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still gives strong when-to-use guidance.

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