Update Company Checklist Template

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), it discloses partial-update semantics, the company_id default, that the modified template is returned on success, and that failures return an error payload with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404) and their causes. This is rich behavioral context.

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 about 130 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows into usage, return/error behavior, required params, and API context. Every sentence adds value — no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return value and error payload. It addresses partial update behavior, the prerequisite of resolving id, config defaults, and likely error codes. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics: company_id can default from procore_set_config, id must point to an existing parent record, and it lists the required parameters. However, it does not elaborate on list_template's structure beyond what the schema already provides, and the 'required' vs 'defaults when omitted' nuance for company_id is slightly ambiguous.

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 a Company Checklist Template for a specified Company' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling create/list/show/delete tools and provides the exact endpoint (PATCH /rest/v1.0/companies/{company_id}/checklist/list_templates/{id}).

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 tells the agent to resolve 'id' with the matching list tool first, explains that omitted fields retain current values (partial update), and notes company_id falls back to procore_set_config. These are concrete when/how-to-use instructions that go beyond a generic 'updates' statement.

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