Update Filing Type

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

The description adds value by noting 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update) and that some names cannot be changed. Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so the description supplements this with specific constraints and return behavior.

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, with two main sentences plus endpoint info. It front-loads the action. However, the confusion with 'Incidents' slightly mars clarity.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers core aspects but leaves questions about the severity_level_id parameter and lacks examples or prerequisites.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description only highlights required fields but does not significantly augment the schema's information, such as explaining the severity_level_id parameter's role.

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 clearly states that the tool updates a specified Filing Type, including a note about Procore-provided names. However, it confusingly refers to 'Incidents' in places, potentially conflating with another tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_filing_types or show_filing_type. The mention of 'Use this to update an existing Incidents' is misleading and does not provide clear when-to-use context.

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