Update Standard Cost Code

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

The description discloses partial update behavior (omitted fields keep current values), idempotency via idempotentHint annotation, and error payload structure with HTTP status codes. It also notes required permissions via the 403 hint. This goes beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true) by detailing the operation semantics and failure modes.

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 well-structured: a clear opening statement, partial update guidance, id resolution tip, return value, error handling, required parameters, API context, and endpoint. Every sentence adds useful information without verbosity.

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 mutation tool with annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint false) and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers the operation, prerequisites (resolve id first), error handling, required parameters, and even the Procore API module. No output schema exists, but the return value ('Returns the modified standard cost code') is stated.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by listing required parameters and explaining the standard_cost_code_list_id context and that standard_cost_code is a nested object. However, it doesn't elaborate on the view parameter's behavior beyond what schema already provides, so not a 5.

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 standard cost code in Procore' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_standard_cost_code and show_standard_cost_code by focusing on updating an existing record, and it even references the matching list tool for resolving the id.

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 explicitly tells the agent to resolve the id with the matching list tool first, and explains that only fields intended to change should be sent, implying when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also lists common error scenarios (401, 403, 404) that help the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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