Update Project Distribution Group

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses partial-update behavior (omitted fields keep current values), request payload nesting ('nested under distribution_group'), project_id defaulting, and detailed error semantics (401/403/404). This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone don't provide, with no contradiction.

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 a dense paragraph, but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, patch semantics, payload mapping, defaulting, required params, return/error behavior, and API endpoint. It's slightly long but not wasteful; could be improved with bullet points.

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 6-param update tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context: what it does, how to invoke, how parameters map to the API, error behavior, return value, and the exact endpoint. No important gaps for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds meaningful extras: clarifies that only intended fields change, explains how top-level arguments map to the distribution_group payload, and mentions project_id defaulting—all beyond the schema's 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 'Update a Distribution Group associated with the given Project'—a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/list/show/delete distribution group 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), prerequisite that distribution_group_id must reference an existing record and should be resolved with the matching list tool first, and the project_id default from procore_set_config. It doesn't name a specific sibling alternative or state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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