Update Contributing Behavior

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed'), return of modified object, and endpoint details (PATCH). No contradiction with annotations. Provides useful information about less obvious behavior.

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?

Three sentences, very compact. Includes API endpoint information which may be extraneous for an AI agent but does not detract. Could be slightly more focused on behavior over implementation details.

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 main aspects: update action, partial update, immutability constraint, return value. Lacks error scenarios, permission requirements, but given schema coverage and annotations, it is sufficient for typical use.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description reinforces required params and adds constraint that Procore provided names cannot be changed, which maps to the 'name' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Updates a Contributing Behavior', includes constraints on Procore provided names, and mentions partial update behavior. However, there is an odd reference to 'Incidents' that may confuse. Overall purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update_contributing_behaviors, create, or delete. The only constraint mentioned (name immutability for Procore provided) is useful but does not help with tool selection among siblings.

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