Update Company'S Logo

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

The description discloses rich behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide: partial update behavior, default value for company_id, success return format, and failure error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404). It explicitly covers authentication and permission failures, which is valuable context that annotations do not offer. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 longer than the minimal two-sentence example, but each sentence earns its place: main action, partial update, default, success response, error handling, required parameters, API context, and endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It loses one point for being somewhat dense, though not excessively verbose.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value ('Returns the modified company s logo on success'), error behavior, parameter defaults, and API endpoint. For a simple 2-parameter tool, this is fully complete and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by specifying the default behavior for company_id ('defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted') and explicitly noting that company_id is required. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and location 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 opens with 'Upload and set company logo,' which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_company_logo (deletion) and create_a_project_logo (project-scoped). The title and description consistently reference the company logo, making the tool's purpose 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 clear usage context: it explains partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), states that company_id defaults to procore_set_config, and points to the Procore API location. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like delete_company_logo, so it falls 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.