Update RFI Reply

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses critical behavioral details: omitted fields keep current values, fields must be passed top-level despite being nested in the payload, project_id defaults to a configured value, the successful return payload (modified RFI reply), and failure response semantics with specific HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This is rich operational detail that annotations alone do not provide.

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 but every sentence contributes value: it covers patch behavior, payload handling, defaults, prerequisites, return values, error types, required parameters, and API reference. It is longer than the minimal two-sentence ideal but well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted sentences.

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?

This is a complete description for an update tool with no output schema. It explains return values, common error payloads, parameter defaults, and resource resolution prerequisites. Given the sibling tools (list/create/show RFI replies), this tool's role in the workflow is fully specified.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics: it explains that project_id is optional in practice (defaults from procore_set_config) even though the schema marks it required, that record fields are passed as top-level arguments though wrapped under 'reply' in the payload, and that rfi_id/id must resolve existing records. These clarifications go beyond the generic schema 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 'Updates a specified RFI reply' — a specific verb + resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_rfi (updates the RFI itself) and create_rfi_reply (creates a reply). It also narrows the scope to 'specified' (existing reply), so there is no ambiguity about its role.

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 clear context: it explains partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), instructs the agent to resolve rfi_id and id with the matching list tool first, and notes that project_id defaults from procore_set_config. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like create_rfi_reply, but the usage context strongly implies when to use this tool.

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