Update Project Segment Item

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

The description adds two key behavioral points beyond annotations: (1) the ID is subject to change and should be stored from the response, and (2) only supplied fields are updated (partial update). Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description complements annotations but doesn't provide extensive additional behavioral context.

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 concise but includes redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Work Breakdown Structure records' repeated). It also includes optional technical details (Procore API and endpoint) that could be omitted. While not overly verbose, it could be more streamlined.

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 the 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the return value ('returns the modified object on success') and warns about the dynamic ID. It explains the partial update behavior. However, it does not mention error handling or provide usage context relative to related tools (e.g., creation or bulk operations), leaving some gaps for complete understanding.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description only lists the required parameters (project_id, segment_id, id) already noted in the schema, and adds no further semantic context for the optional parameters (code, name, status, sub_job_id). Therefore, the description adds minimal value 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 clearly states that the tool updates a specific Project Segment Item (a WBS record). It specifies that it updates existing records and that only supplied fields are changed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_all_project_segment_items' or 'create_project_segment_item', so the purpose is clear but not fully contextualized among 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 indicates when to use the tool: to update an existing WBS record with partial updates ('only the supplied fields are changed'). It implies the tool is for single-item updates by requiring specific IDs (project_id, segment_id, id). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for bulk updates or creation) or mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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