Update Contributing Condition

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description enriches behavioral understanding significantly. It discloses partial-update behavior, the immutability of Procore-provided names, the request-payload nesting translation, default company_id behavior, and common error response status codes (401, 403, 404). No contradiction with 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?

Although the description is lengthy, every sentence contributes actionable information: purpose, constraint, patch semantics, payload handling, defaults, id resolution, return value, error handling, and endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it dense but not wasteful.

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?

For a PATCH endpoint with partial-update semantics and external dependencies (config, list resolution), the description is remarkably complete. It covers return values, error codes, required parameters, and the Procore API reference. No output schema exists, so the explicit mention of 'Returns the modified contributing condition' fills that gap. The guidance about resolving id via list tool is crucial and included.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that id must identify an existing parent record and should be resolved via the list tool, and that company_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config. It also clarifies how fields map to the request payload, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Updates a Contributing Condition.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list, create, show, and delete by focusing on the update operation. The additional note about Procore-provided names adds scope 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 provides practical guidance: it tells users to resolve the id via the matching list tool first, explains PATCH semantics ('send only fields you intend to change'), and clarifies company_id default behavior. It does not explicitly mention when to use this over bulk_update_contributing_conditions, but the partial-update context makes the intended use clear.

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