Update Rounding Configuration

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses partial-update behavior, payload nesting, company_id defaulting to procore_set_config, return value on success, and common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, or idempotentHint=true.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then follows with concise, purposeful details: partial update, payload handling, default, return value, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. Each sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary padding.

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 PATCH tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, how to update, defaults, expected return, failure modes, and required parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without external documentation.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the payload nesting, though this is partially redundant with 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 a clear verb and resource: 'Updates an existing rounding configuration for the specified Procore company.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_rounding_configuration and delete_rounding_configuration by explicitly targeting an existing configuration.

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 partial-update guidance ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') and states the required company_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_rounding_configuration, but the 'existing' qualifier and update semantics imply when to use this tool over creation.

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