Update Project Location

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

Beyond the annotations, the description details partial update behavior, automatic project_id defaulting, the need to pre-resolve location_id, and the error payload format with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). It also clarifies that fields are passed as top-level arguments but nested under 'location' in the payload, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 well-structured and information-dense, with the main verb and resource in the first sentence followed by essential usage details. Every sentence contributes value—partial update semantics, payload nesting, defaults, error handling, and required parameters—without redundancy.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and annotations already present, the description covers all necessary operational details: what fields to send, how defaults work, how to resolve the location, what the return value is, and how errors are reported. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 parameter context beyond the schema: project_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, location_id must reference an existing record and be resolved via a list tool, and omitted parameters retain their current values. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 core action ('Update the specified Location') and provides endpoint details (PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/locations/{location_id}), making the resource scope apparent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling 'update_location' tool, even though the endpoint confirms it is project-scoped.

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 clear guidance on partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') and instructs the user to resolve location_id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative list tools, but the context is sufficient for typical use.

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