Update Concierge Parameters

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds valuable behavioral details: partial update semantics, automatic nesting under 'concierge' in the request payload, company_id defaulting to procore_set_config, expected return value, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). These significantly enrich the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage details, default behavior, return value, and error handling. While slightly long, every sentence adds meaningful information, including endpoint and API location, with no filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (three parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to pass fields, default behavior, return value, error scenarios, and the exact API endpoint. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds the crucial nuance that parameters are passed as top-level arguments but automatically nested under 'concierge' in the payload, which is not evident from the schema. It also reinforces the partial-update behavior, providing extra context beyond 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 begins with 'Updates an existing concierge parameter for the specified Procore company,' which is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes the tool from read-only or create operations and includes the specific endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

It provides clear context for partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') and explains the default for company_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create or list, but the update semantics are clear from the description and the error statuses help operational usage.

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