Update Line Item

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the Final-status constraint, partial update PATCH semantics, defaulting behavior, success return value, and common HTTP error statuses (401/403/404). This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 contributes: action, precondition, patch semantics, defaults, id resolution, return value, error handling, required parameters, API location, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and well-structured for an agent to parse.

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 5-parameter schema, no output schema, and the provided annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when it can be used, how to construct the PATCH request, what to expect on success/failure, and the exact endpoint. No glaring gaps remain.

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% for the five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: company_id/project_id defaulting via procore_set_config, the requirement that material_requirement_id and id reference existing records, and the instruction to use list tools first. However, it also mentions 'item' and 'notes' as updatable fields not present in the schema, which slightly muddies the parameter mapping.

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 uses a specific verb ('Updates') and clearly identifies the resource ('a specific line item in a material requirements document'). It also lists the key modifiable properties (quantity, item, notes), which distinguishes it from other update tools in the sibling 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 explicit preconditions and directives: the document must not be in Final status, only changed fields should be sent, omitted fields retain values, and ids must be resolved with the matching list tool first. It also explains defaults for company_id/project_id, which is crucial for correct invocation.

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