Update Project Region

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: partial update semantics, company_id defaulting, payload nesting, return value, and failure modes (401, 403, 404). This gives the agent a fully transparent behavioral model.

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?

Though longer than minimal, every sentence adds value: action, partial update behavior, payload structure, defaults, id resolution, return value, error codes, and endpoint. Information is logically ordered and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: it names required parameters, explains return value ('Returns the modified project region on success'), details error payloads with common HTTP statuses, and gives endpoint and permission context. Nothing essential is missing.

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% with each parameter described, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that fields are passed as top-level args but nested under 'project_region' in the payload, that company_id defaults to config, and that id must reference an existing record. This adds meaningful layer beyond the schema.

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 the specified Project Region,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project_region, show_project_region, and delete_project_region by focusing on updating an existing record.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first' and explains that omitted fields keep current values. It also notes company_id defaults to procore_set_config when omitted. It does not explicitly list alternatives like create_project_region, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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