Update Project Currency Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it specifies the return value ('Returns the modified project currency configuration on success'), mentions error payload structure with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and explains the conditional updatability of currency_iso_code. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main action and includes useful details, but it repeats the same instruction twice ('Send only the fields you want to change...' and 'Send only the fields you intend to change...'). This redundancy is unnecessary and slightly bloats the description, preventing it from being maximally concise.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the operation, partial update behavior, field preconditions, parameter defaults, required parameters, return value, error handling, and even the Procore API endpoint reference. No significant gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted, and restates the eligibility condition for currency_iso_code. This supplements the schema descriptions with operational knowledge.

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 action: 'Updates the project's currency configuration.' It identifies the resource (project currency configuration) and uses a specific verb ('Updates'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_project_currency_configuration and delete_project_currency_configuration by scope explicitly labeled as 'project's' (as opposed to company-level configuration 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 provides clear usage context: it explains partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you want to change'), the precondition for currency_iso_code updates, and the defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id to procore_set_config values. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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