Update Purchase Order Contract

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing partial-update semantics (omitted fields retain values), the success return value (modified contract), and detailed failure modes (401/403/404 with error payload). It also identifies the API endpoint and section, adding rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, or destructiveHint=false.

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?

Every sentence carries relevant information: the action, partial-update behavior, id resolution prerequisite, return value, error codes, required parameters, and endpoint. Despite being longer than the high calibration example, it is dense and well-organized, starting with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: return value, failure modes, prerequisite id resolution, and partial-update semantics. It gives enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional documentation. The lack of an output schema is compensated by stating the return value explicitly.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful context for the id parameter ('must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first') and clarifies that the purchase_order_contract object supports partial updates. This adds value beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, though attachments and run_configurable_validations are not further elaborated.

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 'Updates an existing purchase order contract in Procore', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from create/delete/list by emphasizing 'existing' and including the PATCH endpoint. This unambiguously identifies the tool's function.

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 context: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and instructs to resolve id with 'the matching list tool first'. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like create or show, but the prerequisite guidance and implied use case for existing records give sufficient direction.

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