Update Hazard

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses several behavioral traits: partial update behavior ('omitted fields keep their current values'), defaulting of company_id from procore_set_config, the fact that fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested in the request payload, return value on success, and specific error statuses (401, 403, 404). This significantly exceeds what the annotations alone provide and contains no contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then covers constraints, usage, defaults, errors, and endpoint information in a logical order. Every sentence adds valuable information without redundancy or fluff. Though somewhat long, it is dense with purpose, making it appropriately sized for a tool with multiple behavioral nuances.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, required parameters, parameter defaulting, id resolution, update semantics, success return, error handling, API area, and endpoint. There is no output schema to describe return details beyond what is stated ('Returns the modified hazard on success'). The description is complete for an agent to select and 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?

The input schema already contains detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: company_id defaults to the configured company when omitted, id must be resolved via the list tool, and fields are sent as top-level arguments which get nested under 'hazard' in the payload. This goes beyond the schema's static parameter definitions, justifying a 4.

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 'Updates the specified hazard,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_hazard, delete_hazard, and list_hazards by focusing on updating an existing single hazard. Additional constraints like 'Procore-provided hazard names cannot be changed' further clarify the tool's exact 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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: to update an existing hazard, and instructs to resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first.' It also explains partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_hazard for new records or bulk_update_hazards for multiple changes, so it stops short of fully mapping the sibling landscape.

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