Update Prime Contract

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (modification) and destructiveHint=false, which the description confirms by stating 'updates' and 'returns the modified object'. The description does not add additional behavioral context, such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects implied by openWorldHint=true. With annotations present, the burden is lower, but the description could elaborate on what happens to unchanged fields or the impact of partial updates.

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 concise, consisting of four sentences that cover the purpose, usage, required parameters, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the core action. Minor typo ('Prime Contracts' plural) does not detract significantly. Each sentence serves a purpose, but the API endpoint reference could be considered extra detail for some agents.

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 has 5 parameters (including a complex nested object) and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the action, required parameters, and the Procore API endpoint. However, it does not describe the structure of the 'prime_contract' object, the behavior of 'attachments', or the format of the returned modified object. The description is adequate but could be more complete for an agent to correctly construct the request.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter's type and purpose. The description adds value by listing required parameters ('id, project_id, prime_contract') and stating that only supplied fields are changed, implying partial update semantics. However, it does not explain the structure of the 'prime_contract' object or how attachments are handled, leaving reliance on the schema's descriptions.

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 it updates a specific Prime Contract and indicates that only supplied fields are changed. The name and title align with the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_prime_contract_project' or 'update_prime_contract_line_item', which could cause confusion for an AI agent selecting among similar tools.

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 states 'Use this to update an existing Prime Contracts' and lists required parameters, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools, such as creating a new prime contract or deleting one. An explicit exclusion or alternative guidance would improve the score.

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