Update Company Inspection Template Item

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: partial update behavior, payload nesting, defaulting of company_id, requirement for existing parent records, return value, and error payload details (401/403/404). This goes far beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations. No contradiction detected.

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?

Every sentence contributes meaningful information: purpose, partial update rule, argument handling, defaults, prerequisites, return value, error handling, and endpoint. It is dense but not bloated, and it is 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 is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, parameter defaults and requirements, what to expect on success, common failure modes, and the exact API endpoint. The agent has enough context to invoke it 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 value by clarifying that body fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'inspection_template_item' in the payload, that company_id defaults to the configured value, and that inspection_template_id and id must resolve to existing records. This enriches parameter understanding beyond schema 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Updates a Company Inspection Template Item for a specified Company.' It clearly identifies the action and scope, and the endpoint PATCH .../items/{id} further distinguishes it from sibling create/show/delete/list tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 actionable usage guidance: partial update semantics, company_id defaulting from procore_set_config, and explicit instruction to resolve inspection_template_id and id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use this tool or name alternatives for creation, but the context strongly implies existing-record updates.

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