Update Drawing Set

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavior beyond that: partial update semantics, request payload nesting under 'drawing_set', project_id default behavior, return of the modified drawing set, and common error status interpretations (401, 403, 404). This exceeds the annotation baseline, though it does not detail all possible failure modes or payload structure nuances.

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 concise at roughly five sentences and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, update semantics, parameter mapping, id resolution, return/error behavior, and endpoint reference. It is slightly dense but well-structured, starting with the core action and then layering usage details. No redundant filler.

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 tool with 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, default behaviors, prerequisites (list first), return values, and error handling. It also provides the Procore API path. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that additionalProperties are disallowed, but the schema already communicates that.

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 describes each parameter with field roles (URL path vs body). The description adds meaning by explaining that record fields should be passed as top-level arguments and are nested under 'drawing_set' in the request payload, and that project_id defaults to the config value. This supplements the schema's descriptions, which are otherwise purely structural.

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 an existing Drawing Set in the specified Project' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like create_drawing_set or list_drawing_sets by emphasizing 'existing' and requiring an id. 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 explicit guidance: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' clarifies partial updates. It instructs to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first' and notes the project_id default. It lacks explicit alternatives like 'use create_drawing_set for new records' but gives sufficient contextual guidance.

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