Update Hazard

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds that Procore-provided hazard names cannot be changed and that only supplied fields are updated (partial update). However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The partial update behavior is useful but could be more comprehensive.

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 includes redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Updates a Hazard' and later 'Updates the specified Incidents') and extraneous API endpoint details that do not aid the agent. It could be more streamlined.

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 4 parameters, the description covers the core operation and return value. However, the inconsistency between 'Hazard' and 'Incidents' leaves ambiguity, and it does not explain error conditions or the effect of omitting optional fields.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters at 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning. It only restates that company_id and id are required, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Updates a Hazard' but then refers to 'Incidents' inconsistently, creating confusion. It includes a useful constraint about Procore-provided names not being changeable, but the mixed terminology undermines clarity. The purpose is discernible but not crisp.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Incidents (only the supplied fields are changed)', implying a partial update use case, but does not specify when to avoid this tool (e.g., if bulk update is needed) or mention alternatives like 'bulk_update_hazards'. No exclusions or context for decision-making.

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