Update Contract'S Invoice Configuration

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, disclosing partial update behavior (omitted fields retain values), payload nesting of arguments, defaulting of project_id, prerequisite for contract_id, return value (modified configuration), and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). These details substantially enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes necessary operational details in a logical order. It is somewhat verbose and contains a typo ('contract s' instead of 'contract's'), but each sentence contributes meaningful information, and it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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 compensates well by explaining the return value, typical error payloads, required identifiers, and defaulting behavior. It also provides the API area and endpoint, making the tool's context fully understandable for selection and invocation.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions and enums (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about partial updates and top-level argument nesting, but it also introduces a contradiction: the schema marks project_id as required while the description says it defaults when omitted. This inconsistency reduces the value of the added semantic guidance.

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 action ('Update') and the specific resource ('a specific Contract's Invoice Configuration'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_contracts_invoice_configuration tool, though the verb 'Update' inherently contrasts with 'get'.

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: partial update semantics (send only fields to change), project_id defaulting to procore_set_config, and the prerequisite that contract_id must identify an existing record resolved via a list tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for reading the configuration.

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