Update Project Segment Item

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the record ID may change and instructing the agent to store the response, that omitted fields keep current values, that it returns the modified item, and that failures return HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). These are behavioral details not present in the annotations, which only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, making the tool much safer to invoke correctly.

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 dense and front-loaded with the main action, but the contradictory sentence about project_id's default undermines clarity and wastes words. The 'Required parameters' line duplicates what the schema already conveys, adding redundancy. It is not as crisp 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 essential context: prerequisites (resolve with list tool), partial update semantics, return value, error patterns, endpoint, and API category. However, the project_id default/required contradiction is a notable gap that could cause an agent to omit a required parameter, so the description is not fully reliable despite being otherwise thorough.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description introduces a direct contradiction: it states 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' while the schema marks project_id as required and the description itself later lists 'Required parameters: project_id, segment_id, id.' This conflicting guidance is likely to mislead the agent about whether project_id must be supplied, negatively impacting correct invocation.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Update a specific Project Segment Item.' It further specifies the exact endpoint and URL path, and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from bulk operations like update_all_project_segment_items. This unambiguously states what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings.

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 concrete usage guidance: resolve segment_id and id with the matching list tool first, and send only fields to change due to partial update semantics. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like update_all_project_segment_items for bulk updates, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool for single-item updates.

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