Update Project Checklist Template

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description reveals important behavior: omitted fields are preserved, project_id defaults to procore_set_config, and failures return HTTP status codes with common meanings (401, 403, 404). This fully informs the agent about runtime behavior and error handling.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes: purpose, partial-update behavior, project_id default, id resolution, return value, error codes, required params, and API reference. No filler or redundant content—each clause earns its place.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states what is returned (modified template) and covers error scenarios, required parameters, and API endpoint. It lacks elaboration on the list_template object structure, but the schema hints at an object and the endpoint reference provides enough context for a CRUD update tool.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds valuable semantics: project_id defaults to the configured value, id must resolve to an existing parent record, and it explicitly lists required parameters. This goes beyond the schema's generic field 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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: "Updates an Inspection Checklist Template." This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project_checklist_template, show_project_checklist_template, and delete_project_checklist_template by explicitly indicating modification of an existing template.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining partial update semantics ("Send only the fields you intend to change") and a prerequisite ("resolve it with the matching list tool first"). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for creation), though the sibling create tool implies that.

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