Update Generic Tool

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) already indicate this is a mutation, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. The statement that it 'returns the modified object on success' is minimal. Without annotations, the description would be insufficient.

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 three sentences and front-loads the purpose. However, it includes extra details like the API endpoint path and Procore API section, which may be redundant. While not verbose, it could be more streamlined.

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?

The description covers the partial update behavior and return value, but given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, it lacks information on permissions, error handling, or the structure of the modified object. The reference to a tutorial helps but does not fully compensate for these gaps.

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% description coverage for all 7 parameters. The description lists the required parameters (company_id, generic_tool_id, title) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The note about 'only the supplied fields are changed' is a behavioral detail rather than 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 clearly states the action ('Update a Generic Tool's attributes') and identifies the resource as Custom - Configurable Tools. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_generic_tool_item by specifying the target is the tool itself, not an item. However, there is no explicit differentiation from other update tools.

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 a direct usage statement ('Use this to update an existing Custom - Configurable Tools') and notes that only supplied fields are changed. It includes a link to a tutorial for more context, but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., batch updates).

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