Update Project Pattern'S Segment Order

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

With annotations already indicating idempotent, non-destructive write behavior, the description adds valuable context: partial update semantics, return of modified segment order, and specific error codes (401, 403, 404) with causes. This goes beyond annotation hints and helps the agent anticipate failures.

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 and front-loaded, covering behavior, errors, and endpoint, but it contains a contradictory statement about project_id defaults and the required list, and has a typo ('pattern's'). It is informative but not as polished or free of waste as it could be.

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?

The description covers many key aspects: purpose, partial update behavior, return value, and failure modes. However, it omits the expected structure of the updated_order array, which is critical for correct invocation since the schema only says items: {}. The internal inconsistency about project_id also undermines completeness for an agent.

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% (both params described), so baseline is 3. However, the description introduces a contradiction: it says project_id defaults when omitted, yet lists project_id as required. It also fails to clarify the structure of updated_order, leaving the array items unspecified in both schema and description. This reduces clarity compared to what schema alone provides.

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 a specific action ('Updates the segment order on a project pattern') with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_company_patterns_segment_order and add/remove segment tools. The scope (project vs company) is explicit in the name and description.

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 context for use: it updates segment order, supports partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), and notes project_id defaults from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like update_company_patterns_segment_order or add/remove segment tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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