Update Contributing Behavior

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

Description discloses partial update behavior, immutability of Procore-provided names, payload nesting, default company_id, return value, and specific error statuses (401/403/404). This goes far beyond the annotation flags (readOnly false, idempotent true, destructive false). 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?

Description is long but each sentence adds value: purpose, constraints, partial update, nesting, defaults, return, errors, endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action. Slightly verbose (e.g., required parameters phrase repeats schema) but overall efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter semantics, return, and error handling. No output schema, but description fills the gap by indicating what is returned. For a complex update tool with partial update behavior, the description provides enough context 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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'contributing_behavior' in the payload, and that company_id defaults to config. This is meaningful semantic info beyond 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 states 'Updates a Contributing Behavior' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (create, delete, list, bulk_update) by focusing on single-record update and noting partial update semantics and the id requirement.

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?

Provides clear prerequisites: resolve id with the matching list tool first, and company_id defaults to procore_set_config. It implies when to use (update an existing record) but doesn't explicitly compare to bulk_update or state when not to use. Clear context with no exclusions fits score 4.

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