Update Image Category

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

The description discloses several behaviors beyond annotations: partial update semantics (omitted fields keep current values), payload nesting (top-level arguments wrapped under 'image_category'), return value on success, and error payload details (401/403/404). These add significant context beyond the annotation hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and do not contradict them.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value (usage, payload nesting, id resolution, returns, errors, endpoint). It is not overly verbose, though it could be restructured with bullets for slightly easier scanning.

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 covers all essential aspects: action, scope, partial update behavior, required parameters, id resolution, return value, failure modes, API endpoint, and Procore module context. Since there is no output schema, explaining the return value is especially helpful. It 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond field types. It clarifies that id must resolve to an existing parent record (use list tool first), that only intended fields should be sent, and that record fields are passed as top-level arguments nested under 'image_category' in the payload. It also lists required parameters, which is not explicit in 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 the tool updates a Photo Album (Image Category) within a specified Project, using a specific verb and resource. It also notes partial-update behavior ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), which helps distinguish it from create/delete tools like create_image_category and delete_image_category.

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 context: it tells the agent to send only changed fields and to resolve `id` with the matching list tool first. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., create_image_category) or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.