Update Layer

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description reinforces these traits and provides the return format.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, usage, and return value, plus a brief API endpoint reference. Every sentence is meaningful and no extraneous information is included. It is perfectly front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description is comprehensive: it explains the operation (partial update), specifies required parameters, identifies the Procore API endpoint, and declares the return value. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. No gaps are evident.

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 7 parameters. The description mentions the required parameters (company_id, project_id, layer_id) and notes that only supplied fields are changed. This is adequate given the high schema coverage; no additional parameter semantics are necessary beyond the 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 that the tool updates an existing layer (Document Markup record). It specifies that only supplied fields are changed, which clarifies the operation's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_a_new_layer' or 'delete_layer', which slightly reduces clarity.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to update existing records) and lists required parameters (company_id, project_id, layer_id). It implies that this is the appropriate tool for partial updates. However, it does not provide guidelines on when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., bulk update tools).

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