Update Meeting Category

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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: partial update (omitted fields keep current values), successful return value, and a detailed error-payload breakdown (401/403/404). This goes well beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 earns its place: purpose, update semantics, id resolution, return value, error scenarios, required parameters, and API endpoint. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a tool with 4 required params, nested object, and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, return value, error handling, and API reference. The only notable gap is that it does not describe the fields expected inside the 'meeting_category' object, which would be helpful since the schema defines it as an empty object, but overall it provides strong context.

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 every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that only intended fields should change and that id needs resolution via a list tool, which helps interpret the 'meeting_category' object parameter. It does not explain the structure of meeting_category, but the schema is equally silent, so the description could have done more, yet it remains above baseline.

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 opens with 'Updates an existing meeting category in Procore,' which is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly distinguishes the tool from create/delete/list siblings. It also specifies the partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), which further clarifies its purpose relative to other meeting category operations.

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?

It gives explicit precondition guidance: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and how to prepare inputs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., create_meeting_category), but the 'existing' wording implies the distinction, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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