Update Company-Level Context

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing partial-update behavior, default value handling for company_id, the need to resolve context_id against an existing parent record, the return value, and common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) is present.

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 and front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: purpose, partial-update semantics, default behavior, prerequisite resolution, returns, errors, required parameters, API version, endpoint. No redundant or filler content.

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 4-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is thoroughly complete. It explains what is returned, common failure modes, the prerequisite step (resolve context_id via list), and points to the exact API endpoint. The agent has enough context 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% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: partial update applies to name/settings, context_id must reference an existing parent record, and company_id can default from procore_set_config. However, there is an internal inconsistency: the schema marks company_id as required, while the description says it can be omitted and defaulted; the description also later lists company_id as required. This minor contradiction prevents 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 the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing company-level context.' It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('company-level context'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create operations. The inclusion of the specific API endpoint further reinforces 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 strong usage guidance: it explains partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), notes that company_id defaults from procore_set_config, and instructs to resolve context_id with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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