Update The Compliance Information For A Purchase Order Contract

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description adds that it only updates supplied fields (partial update) and returns the modified object on success. This provides some behavioral insight, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Given annotations already signal mutation, the description adds modest value.

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 three sentences, starting with the core purpose. It includes relevant API endpoint info but is slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Procore API' line could be considered extra. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation (partial update, returns object). However, it lacks guidance on error scenarios, prerequisites, or when to use this vs. similar tools. The tool is not complex, but completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats that project_id and contract_id are required, which is already in the schema. No additional semantics about how parameters affect behavior are provided. The description does not compensate beyond 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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'compliance information for a Purchase Order Contract.' It also mentions 'Commitments,' which is a Procore term, and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like 'show_compliance_information_for_a_purchase_order_contract.' The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Commitments (only the supplied fields are changed),' which gives context for partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives (e.g., 'show' for reading, or 'update' for work order contracts). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond required parameters.

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