Update Harm Source

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

The description adds the constraint about Procore provided names, but it confusingly refers to updating 'Incidents' instead of Harm Sources, which contradicts the tool name and purpose. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond the name constraint.

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 reasonably concise with four sentences that front-load the purpose. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it effectively communicates key constraints and API details.

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 provides the endpoint and API area, but the confusion about updating Incidents rather than Harm Sources reduces completeness. It does not explain what happens when attempting to change a Procore provided name or the behavior of the 'active' parameter.

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 description lists required parameters and indicates that company_id and id are URL path parameters and name is a body field. It adds the semantic note that only supplied fields are changed (patch behavior), which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it 'Updates a specified Harm Source', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the constraint that Procore provided names cannot be changed, which is unique to this 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 some guidance, noting that only supplied fields are changed and that Procore provided names cannot be changed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_harm_source or bulk_update_harm_sources.

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