Update Contributing Condition

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting that Procore-provided names cannot be changed, and that only supplied fields are modified (partial update semantics). This provides behavioral context beyond 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 four sentences, starting with the core purpose, then constraints, then usage hint, then return info. It includes API reference details. It is reasonably concise but could be tightened by removing the endpoint line if not essential.

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?

The description covers the purpose, constraints, partial update, and required parameters. However, it fails to mention prerequisites, user roles, or alternative tools (e.g., bulk_update_contributing_conditions). The typo 'Incidents' may also mislead, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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. The description adds meaning by listing required parameters, explaining that only supplied fields are changed (applies to name and active), and noting the immutability of Procore-provided names, which adds context to the name parameter.

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 Condition' and includes a specific constraint about Procore-provided names. However, the phrase 'update an existing Incidents' is a minor typo that could cause confusion, slightly reducing clarity.

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 only says 'use this to update an existing Incidents (only the supplied fields are changed)' but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like bulk_update_contributing_conditions or create/delete actions. No guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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