Update Item Response Set

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: partial update semantics, automatic nesting of fields under 'response_set', default company_id from procore_set_config, required id resolution, success/failure response shape, and common error HTTP codes. This is substantial value beyond the annotation flags.

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 dense but every sentence conveys essential operational information: update behavior, partial updates, payload wrapping, defaults, id resolution, response/error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler.

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 mutation nature, two required parameters, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what to send, what is optional, how to obtain the id, expected return value, and error scenarios. It also provides the API endpoint for reference.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context: company_id default from procore_set_config, id as parent record to resolve with list tool, and the automatic nesting of body fields. These clarifications enhance schema definitions.

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 begins with 'Updates a Company Checklist Item Response Set for a specified Company,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the update operation from create, delete, show, and list siblings that appear in the tool list.

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 clear guidance on partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), id resolution ('resolve it with the matching list tool first'), and company_id defaulting behavior. Does not explicitly name alternatives like create or delete, but the context is sufficient to understand when to use this update tool.

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