Update Project Upload

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

Annotations already establish non-readonly behavior, and the description adds meaningful detail: partial-update semantics, return value ('Returns the modified project upload on success'), and error payload with common HTTP statuses (401/403/404). This goes beyond annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence carries useful information: semantics, prerequisites, return behavior, errors, and API reference. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema; the description covers purpose, update behavior, error handling, and API endpoint. It even mentions required parameters and configuration default. The only gap is the vague 'segments' parameter, but overall the description is comprehensive for an update tool.

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% but parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'JSON request body field — upload segments'). The description adds partial-update semantics and project_id defaulting, but creates ambiguity by listing project_id as required while also stating it defaults when omitted. The 'segments' field remains undefined.

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 states 'Updates an existing project upload in the specified Procore project' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_project_upload and show_project_upload by emphasizing 'existing' and the update action.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and advises resolving uuid with 'the matching list tool first.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools for creation/listing, but the guidance 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.