Update Company Pattern'S Segment Order

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it states that omitted fields keep current values, describes the success return value ('Returns the modified company pattern's segment order on success'), and enumerates common error codes (401, 403, 404). This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and failure modes beyond the `readOnlyHint`, `idempotentHint`, and `destructiveHint` flags.

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: the update action, partial-update semantics, default company_id, success/failure behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. The structure front-loads the core purpose and follows with operational details, with no redundant 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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description fully covers purpose, usage, defaults, error handling, and endpoint. It gives the agent everything needed to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (company_id as URL path parameter, updated_order as JSON body array), so the baseline is high. The description adds the default behavior for `company_id` and explicitly lists required parameters. However, the statement about omitted fields keeping current values is slightly confusing given that both parameters are required, which prevents a perfect score.

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 and resource: 'Updates the segment order on a company pattern.' It clearly identifies the company-level scope, which distinguishes it from the project-level sibling tool `update_project_patterns_segment_order` that appears in the sibling list.

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?

Provides clear guidance on partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') and the default behavior for `company_id` (falls back to `procore_set_config`). It does not explicitly contrast with the project-level alternative, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.

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