Update Company Currency Configuration

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses crucial behaviors: partial-update semantics, immutability of currency_iso_code, beta agreement requirement for multicurrency (with specific error code), company_id defaulting to procore_set_config, return value, and common error statuses. This is rich, non-redundant 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and well-organized with constraints and errors. However, the partial-update instruction is repeated nearly verbatim twice, adding redundancy without new information.

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 an update tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers prerequisites (beta agreement), constraints (currency_iso_code fixed), return value, and failure modes. It gives a complete mental model for invoking 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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable parameter insight: currency_iso_code cannot be changed and company_id has a default when omitted. However, this last point slightly conflicts with the schema's required flag for company_id, making the parameter guidance not fully consistent.

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 the company's currency configuration,' a clear verb+resource statement. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_company_currency_configuration and update_project_currency_configuration by specifying company-level scope and the PATCH endpoint.

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 clearly states when to use it: to update company currency configuration, with partial-update semantics and the company_id default behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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