Update Field Rule

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: partial update semantics, company_id default from procore_set_config, rule_id existence prerequisite, success return value, and common HTTP error codes (401, 403, 404). Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true; description aligns with no contradiction.

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?

Description is multi-sentence but densely packed; each clause contributes (purpose, constraints, update semantics, error handling, API reference). It is front-loaded with the purpose and does not repeat schema param descriptions, but it is longer than strictly necessary.

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 9-param tool with no output schema, description covers prerequisites (list tool for rule_id), update semantics, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It also notes success returns the modified rule. This is sufficient for invocation without additional lookups.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining partial update behavior, company_id default behavior, and the unchangeable scope constraint. However, the fieldset_id parameter's schema description allows a recovery use case that seems to contradict the blanket statement that fieldsetId cannot be changed, which slightly muddies the semantic clarity.

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?

Description opens with 'Updates an existing field rule's definition / metadata,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It differentiates from create/delete/list siblings by focusing on existing rule updates and explicitly lists immutable scope fields (assetTypeId, fieldsetId, triggerField, ruleType).

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 clear operational guidance: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and advises resolving rule_id with the matching list tool first. For immutable scope fields, it explicitly directs to 'delete and recreate instead,' offering an alternative path. It falls short of contrasting with the project-scope sibling tool, but the endpoint and required company_id make the scope inferable.

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