Update Drawing Revision

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

Even with annotations present, the description adds significant behavioral detail: partial update semantics ('omitted fields keep their current values'), payload abstraction ('nested under drawing_revision'), defaulting of project_id, return value, and the common HTTP error codes (401/403/404) with their meanings. This goes well beyond the idempotentHint/readOnlyHint annotations and contains no contradictions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then logically flows through update behavior, parameter handling, identification requirements, returns, errors, required params, and API context. Every sentence provides distinct value; there is no redundancy or filler. The endpoint and API category are concise, useful metadata.

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 an update tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what it does, how partial updates work, how parameters are passed, how project_id and id are resolved, expected success response, and failure modes with common error statuses. This gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful extra semantics: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and the note about passing fields as top-level arguments while they nest under 'drawing_revision' in the payload explains the parameter mapping. This pushes it above baseline, though it does not provide field-by-field detail beyond what the schema offers.

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+resource: 'Update specified Drawing Revision.' It also includes the exact REST endpoint (PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/drawing_revisions/{id}) and API category, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/show/create/delete drawing revision tools. The scope is 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?

The description provides clear usage context: it tells the agent to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first' and notes that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config. This is solid guidance for when to use it, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_drawing or update_drawing_set. A small deduction for lacking when-not-to-use exclusions.

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