Update Line Item Type

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint false). The description adds value by specifying 'only the supplied fields are changed' (partial update) and provides the API endpoint. No contradictions. Could additionally mention error handling or permissions.

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 relatively concise with two main sentences plus supplementary info. However, the inclusion of Procore API path and endpoint details may be unnecessary for typical invocation and could be moved or omitted.

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 high schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains it returns the modified object on success, which is helpful. However, it lacks details about error responses or the structure of the returned object. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 three parameters. The description repeats which parameters are required but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. The description of line_item_type remains vague ('line Item Type object'), similar to 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 the tool updates an existing line item type and returns the modified object. It distinguishes from siblings like create_line_item_type. However, the text confusingly refers to 'Commitments' instead of 'Line Item Types', which is a minor inconsistency.

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 mentions using this to update an existing commitment and lists required parameters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. The context is implicit but lacks exclusions.

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