Update Layer Order Rank

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: defaults for omitted IDs, the requirement for an existing layer, the return value ('returns the updated layer order rank'), and detailed error payloads (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate failures and auth needs.

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 somewhat dense but structured efficiently: it opens with the core action, then prerequisites/defaults, then return/error behavior, and finally required params and API reference. Each sentence provides useful information without fluff. It is slightly longer than the ideal but remains focused and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what the tool does, required parameters, defaults, prerequisites, error handling, and the API endpoint. It explains that it returns the updated order rank. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it doesn't elaborate on the exact semantics of midpoint ranking, which is a domain concept rather than a tool detail.

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% with descriptions for all four parameters, but these are minimal (e.g., 'URL path parameter — unique identifier'). The description adds semantic value: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, layer_id must refer to an existing parent record, and order_index uses float values for midpoint ranking. This enhances understanding beyond the raw 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 the tool's purpose: 'Update a layer's position using midpoint ranking with float values.' It specifies the action (update), the resource (layer's position), and the method (midpoint ranking). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'update_group_order_rank' and 'update_layer' by targeting the specific layer order rank operation.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool and necessary prerequisites: 'layer_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains defaults for company_id and project_id. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the name and context provide adequate differentiation.

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