Update Company Pattern'S Segment Order

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

The description adds that 'only the supplied fields are changed' and 'returns the modified object on success,' which complements the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructive behavior. No contradictions, but additional details like permissions or rate limits are missing.

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 reasonably concise with 4 sentences. Front-loads the main action. Includes helpful API reference (Procore API, endpoint). No superfluous 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 simple update with two params, the description covers the action, parameters, and return behavior. However, the 'updated_order' array lacks item-level specification, leaving ambiguity about its expected format. The endpoint and API section provide context. Could be more complete.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats the required parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify the structure of the 'updated_order' array (e.g., items format), which is left empty in the schema.

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 it updates the segment order on a company pattern for Work Breakdown Structure records. It uses a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('segment order on a company pattern'). It differentiates from the sibling 'update_project_patterns_segment_order' by context (company vs project), though not explicitly.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Work Breakdown Structure records' and lists required parameters, implying when to use it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., the sibling project-level tool).

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