Update Group Order Rank

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that the change is applied and returns the updated rank, explains that failures come back as error payloads with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and notes the defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id. These details align with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provide useful operational knowledge, though it does not cover every edge case (e.g., idempotency implications), keeping it at a 4.

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 dense but well-organized: it opens with the core purpose, then covers configuration defaults, prerequisites, return behavior, error handling, required parameters, and the API endpoint. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the most critical information. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple update tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, defaults, error semantics, and endpoint. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could potentially elaborate on how order_index is used or the exact shape of the response, but the provided context is strong and matches 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%, but the schema descriptions are minimal ('URL path parameter — unique identifier'). The description compensates by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, that group_id must identify an existing parent record (resolve with list tool), and that the ranking uses midpoint ranking with float values (clarifying order_index semantics). This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 group's position using midpoint ranking with float values.' It specifies the resource (group's position/order rank) and the method (midpoint ranking with float values), and the endpoint path further disambiguates it from sibling tools like update_layer_order_rank. This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes the 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config, and group_id must be resolved with 'the matching list tool first.' It also lists required parameters and explains common error scenarios (401, 403, 404), which helps the agent decide when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with other update/reorder tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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