Update Company WBS Segment

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds value by clarifying partial update behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed') and return value ('returns the modified object on success'). No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, second explains partial update, third lists required params, fourth gives API reference. Information is front-loaded and each sentence justifies its inclusion.

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 6-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial update behavior, required parameters, and API location. It lacks only potential error handling details, but overall it provides sufficient context.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description mentions required parameters but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 updates company-level WBS segments, using specific verb 'update' and resource 'Work Breakdown Structure records'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and show by specifying 'update existing' and 'company level'.

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 indicates when to use: to update existing WBS records with partial field changes. It lists required parameters and provides API context (Procore API, endpoint). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like project-level updates.

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