Update Submittal Response

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: partial update semantics (omitted fields keep values), return value on success, failure payloads with HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), and defaults from procore_set_config. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence provides useful information—purpose, partial update behavior, payload nesting, defaults, prerequisites, return value, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff, though it repeats required parameters from the schema slightly.

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 the tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations covering idempotency and destructive hints, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, when to use, parameter behavior, return values, common error statuses, and even the underlying API endpoint, leaving no significant gaps for an agent.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that fields are passed as top-level arguments despite being nested under 'submittal_response' in the payload, explains defaulting of company_id/project_id when omitted, and stresses that id must reference an existing parent record.

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 tool updates the name of a Submittal Response for a specified project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_submittal_response or update_submittal by focusing on the submittal response resource and its name field.

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 context on when to use: requires an existing parent record, advises resolving id with the matching list tool first, and explains defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., create_submittal_response for new records) or state when not 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.