Update Department

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), the description discloses meaningful behavior: omitted fields retain current values, the modified department is returned, and errors come as payloads with HTTP status codes. This adds context about auth failures (401) and permission issues (403) that the annotations alone do not provide. 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?

The description is dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, update semantics, id resolution, return value, error handling, required parameters, and API location. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical information. The required-parameters sentence slightly duplicates schema but is not distracting.

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 3-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: prerequisites (resolve id), mutation behavior, return payload, and common failure modes. It also locates the operation within Procore's API (Core > Directory, PATCH endpoint), making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'id must identify an existing parent record' and that the 'department' object should only contain the fields to change. However, it does not elaborate on the internal structure of the department object, which remains largely opaque despite additionalProperties being allowed.

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 'Updates an existing department in Procore,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_departments, create_department, show_department, and delete_department. The explicit 'existing' qualifier and endpoint mention (PATCH /rest/v1.0/departments/{id}) further reinforce its unique purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when and how to use: 'Send only the fields you intend to change' clarifies partial-update semantics, and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' directs the user to resolve the id before updating. It also names common failure statuses (401, 403, 404) to aid in troubleshooting, which is practical usage advice.

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