Update Punch Item Assignment

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the return value ('Returns the modified punch item assignment on success') and error behavior (HTTP statuses 401/403/404). It also clarifies the partial-update behavior where omitted fields retain current values, which is not captured by annotations.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then adds usage semantics, defaults, error handling, and endpoint info. Each sentence contributes useful information, with 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the success return value and common error payloads. It also covers the partial-update behavior and project_id default, which are critical for correct invocation. Some specifics of the nested punch_item_assignment object are left to the schema, which is already documented.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that project_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted and by advising to resolve id with the list tool, which goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 single Punch Item Assignment,' naming the specific verb (Update), the resource (Punch Item Assignment), and the scope (single). It also cites the Procore API section and PATCH endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like update_punch_item.

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 gives actionable context: it explains partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), the default behavior for project_id, and instructs to resolve id via the matching list tool. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but does recommend a list-first workflow, which is clear guidance for correct use.

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