Update Project Insurance

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds that it returns the modified object on success. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, partial update behavior, or any other traits beyond what annotations provide. 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 concise with four sentences, the first being a clear action statement. The 'Required parameters' line is helpful but slightly redundant with the schema. The 'Procore API' line provides context but could be trimmed. Overall, it's efficiently front-loaded.

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 20 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic intention and required fields but lacks information on return structure, error cases, or nuances of partial updates. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps for a complex 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond listing three required parameters (project_id, id, vendor_id). It does not elaborate on parameter meanings, relationships, or format constraints, remaining at the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 it updates an insurance record, specifying it's for existing Directory records and only changes supplied fields. However, it confusingly refers to 'Directory records' while the tool name is 'update_project_insurance', causing slight ambiguity. It implicitly differentiates from other update tools by focusing on insurance.

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 gives a basic usage instruction ('Use this to update an existing Directory records'), but fails to specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., create, delete, or other insurance update endpoints). No explicit guidance on prerequisites or context.

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