Update Direct Cost Item

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals a 100-line-item limit, lack of concurrent request support, 409 conflict behavior, project_id defaulting, and error-status mapping (401/403/404). It also notes the return payload. This significantly exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 a well-organized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then covers limits, concurrency, partial updates, defaults, return values, errors, and API reference. No redundant sentences; all content is operationally relevant.

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?

With two required path parameters and two optional body fields, an output schema is absent, yet the description specifies return success, typical failure modes, required parameters, and request constraints. It also appropriately cross-references the configuration default and list tool, making it fully actionable.

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 meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. It also explains the partial-update request body behavior, enriching the direct_cost parameter semantics.

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 begins with 'Update a specific Direct Cost Item,' a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling update_direct_cost_line_item by targeting direct cost items and identifies the PATCH endpoint and API section. Clear and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear usage context: partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), the need to resolve id with the matching list tool first, and concurrency constraints. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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