Update Company Naming Standard Rule

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses partial update behavior, default company_id from procore_set_config, common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404), and the return value on success. This is substantial behavioral context that helps an agent anticipate side effects and handle failures.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds either usage guidance, error handling, or endpoint details. No filler; the length is appropriate for the tool's 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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, partial updates, deactivation, error payloads, required parameters, return value, and API endpoint. Some field interdependencies (rule_type, definition shape) are left to the schema, but the description is comprehensive for agent decision-making.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds global semantics (omitted fields keep current values, company_id defaults from config, rule_id must be resolved) that complement the schema without repeating it.

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 an existing naming rule,' which clearly states a specific verb (update) and resource (naming rule). It also clarifies deactivation behavior ('Use isActive=false to deactivate without deleting'), distinguishing this from deletion tools and aligning with its purpose.

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: it instructs sending only fields to change, explains partial update semantics, and explicitly says to resolve rule_id with the matching list tool first. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative for creating new rules, but the wording implies this is for existing rules only.

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