Update Stamp

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it is a partial update ('only the supplied fields are changed') and that it returns the modified object. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, and the description aligns with no contradictions.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and includes essential details like required parameters and API endpoint without unnecessary fluff.

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 11 parameters, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, partial update behavior, and return value ('modified object'). It provides API context (Procore v2.0) which adds completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists required parameters but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 explicitly states 'Updates an existing stamp' with clear scope (company, project, document). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_stamp' or 'add_a_new_markup' by focusing on updating existing records.

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 tells the agent to use it for updating existing Document Markup records and notes that only supplied fields are changed. It implicitly differentiates from creation and deletion but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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