Update Item Response Set

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are present. The description adds that it returns the modified object and implies a partial update (PATCH). It does not explicitly mention side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling, but the annotations cover the most critical traits.

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 four sentences and front-loads the main purpose. The second sentence provides a useful usage note. However, the third sentence partially repeats the return value already implied, and the Procore API/endpoint line may be redundant for agent decision-making. Still, it is relatively concise.

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 explains the tool does a partial update and returns the modified object. However, it contains an inconsistency: it mentions updating 'Inspections' while the resource is an 'Item Response Set', which could confuse an agent. There is no mention of preconditions, error responses, or behavior on failure. Given schema completeness and annotations, it is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The description lists required parameters (company_id, id) but does not add any new meaning or usage details beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how to use the optional fields or their formats, which is acceptable given the schema completeness.

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 action ('Updates a Company Checklist Item Response Set') and the resource, making the purpose identifiable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also update related resources (e.g., 'update_a_response'), which would help an agent distinguish between them.

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 a usage hint ('Use this to update an existing Inspections (only the supplied fields are changed)') indicating when to use the tool and that it performs partial updates. However, it does not specify when to avoid using it or mention alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., adding responses to a set).

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