Update Generic Tool Item

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds rich behavioral context: partial update with omitted fields preserved, request payload nesting, project_id fallback to config, and a detailed error taxonomy (401 expired token, 403 missing permission, 404 bad ID). It also states the success return value. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

Although the description is longer than a typical two-sentence description, every sentence earns its place: purpose, tutorial link, partial update behavior, payload nesting, config default, ID resolution, return value, error handling, required params, API location, and endpoint. The structure front-loads the core action and then flows logically to usage nuances and failure modes.

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 30-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers the return payload, common error statuses and meanings, required parameters, endpoint, and prerequisite ID resolution. The schema handles field-level descriptions, and the description covers all contextual concerns an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter-level clarity by explaining that body fields should be passed as top-level arguments but are nested under 'generic_tool_item' in the actual payload, and that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value. These insights are not present in the schema and help agents construct valid calls.

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 Item's attributes,' a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_generic_tool_item, show_generic_tool_item, delete_generic_tool_item, and batch_update_generic_tool_items. The PATCH endpoint and required IDs further reinforce the singular update scope.

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 strong contextual guidance: partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), a prerequisite workflow ('resolve them with the matching list tool first'), and project_id defaulting behavior. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools (e.g., create for new items or batch_update for multiple items), so it doesn't fully close the loop on when-not-to-use.

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