Update Incident Action Type

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

Discloses key behaviors: partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed'), name immutability, and success return ('returns the modified object'). Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which align with description. No contradiction.

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?

Description is four sentences, mostly concise. Slight redundancy ('Updates a specified Incident Action Type' then 'Updates the specified Incidents') costs it a top score. Still front-loaded and to the point.

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?

Covers essential aspects: purpose, mutability constraint, partial update, return value. No output schema, so return description suffices. Does not explain error cases or idempotency, but annotations cover safety and idempotency hints (false). Adequate for the 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so description adds limited extra meaning. It lists required parameters (company_id, id, name) and hints at optional fields via 'only the supplied fields are changed', but does not elaborate on parameter constraints or relationships beyond schema.

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 'Updates a specified Incident Action Type' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_incident_action_type' by indicating it updates an existing one, not creates. No ambiguity.

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?

Provides a key usage constraint: 'Procore provided Incident Action Types' names cannot be changed.' Implies when to use (for updating existing types) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools like 'bulk_update_incident_action_types'. Still clear enough for appropriate use.

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