Update Company Upload

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses PATCH/partial-update behavior, company_id fallback behavior, success return value, and common error payload patterns (401/403/404). This is consistent with annotations: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. No contradiction found.

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 compact and front-loaded. It uses six purposeful sentences covering purpose, semantics, defaults, lookup prerequisite, return value, errors, and endpoint. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The description is quite complete: it covers the operation, partial-update behavior, fallback default, prerequisite lookup, success/failure modes, and endpoint. It loses a point because the 'segments' parameter—the only actual body field—is not explained well enough for an agent to construct a valid request, especially with no output schema to compensate.

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 useful meaning for company_id (config default) and uuid (must resolve existing parent record first), but it also creates ambiguity: schema lists company_id as required while the description says it defaults when omitted. Additionally, the 'segments' array parameter is left opaque, with no item schema or explanation beyond the schema label.

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 an existing company upload for the specified Procore company.' It also specifies the PATCH endpoint, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like update_project_upload or create_unified_company_upload. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 context: partial update semantics, omitted fields retaining values, company_id defaulting from procore_set_config, and instructions to resolve uuid with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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