Update Subcategory Name

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint false), the description discloses that this is a mutating operation that 'Applies the change,' identifies specific HTTP error semantics (401/403/404), and reveals default behavior for omitted IDs. This is substantial behavioral context for a tool with no output schema.

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 purpose and includes valuable sections on defaults, prerequisites, and error handling. Some redundancy exists between 'returns the updated Subcategory UUID' and 'returns the updated subcategory name,' and the API endpoint suffix is verbose, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, return value, parameter defaults, prerequisite resolution, and likely error statuses. This gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful usage context by explaining the defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id and the requirement that category_id/subcategory_id reference existing records, which is not in the schema.

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 the action: 'Update a Subcategory’s name within a Category.' This specific verb and resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_category_name or delete_subcategory. It also explains the response (updated UUID and name).

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 instructs that category_id and subcategory_id must identify existing parent records and should be resolved with the matching list tool first, providing clear prerequisites. It also explains that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative update/delete tools for subcategories.

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