Update Generic Tool

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: partial update behavior, nested payload structure ('nested under generic_tool'), company_id defaulting from procore_set_config, and error payload details with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds significant context that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) do not cover, such as auth requirements and failure modes.

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 long but well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then usage semantics, error behavior, and ending with API context. Each sentence provides useful information. The link to the Correspondence Tool tutorial is slightly tangential but not excessive. It is front-loaded with the main action and maintains logical flow.

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 7-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: update semantics, default behavior, error handling, and required parameters. It also mentions the return value. The only gap is the company_id default versus required contradiction, and it does not detail the response body structure, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'generic_tool' in the payload, and company_id can default to the value from procore_set_config when omitted. However, this creates a slight inconsistency with the schema marking company_id as required, which could confuse an agent. Overall, the description enhances parameter understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 'Update a Generic Tool's attributes', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_generic_tool and list_generic_tools by focusing on updating an existing tool's attributes. The endpoint and API context further reinforce the purpose.

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 context on when to use this tool: to update an existing Generic Tool, with the instruction to resolve generic_tool_id using the matching list tool first. It also explains partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool (e.g., creation or deletion), though this is implied by the update-specific verb and the mention of create_generic_tool as a sibling.

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