Update Time And Material Timecard

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

The description discloses partial update behavior (omitted fields keep current values), the project_id default from procore_set_config, return value on success, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404) with meanings. This adds significant context beyond the annotations, which only state read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints.

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 operational value—core action, partial-update note, payload mapping, config default, id prerequisite, return type, error mapping, and API context. It is front-loaded and logically ordered without redundancy or 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?

The description is exceptionally thorough for an update tool with no output schema, covering payload structure, defaults, error handling, and API location. However, it internally contradicts the schema by stating project_id is required yet also saying it defaults when omitted, which could confuse an agent about whether to supply it. This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential semantics not in the schema: parameters are nested under 'time_and_material_timecard' in the payload despite being top-level arguments, project_id defaults from config when omitted, and id must refer to an existing parent record. This greatly helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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's action as 'Update a specified Time And Material Timecard' and provides the HTTP method and endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, and list timecards. This specific verb+resource combination leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

It instructs agents to resolve the id using the matching list tool first and explains partial-update semantics. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like bulk_update_time_and_material_timecards for multi-record updates, so it lacks an explicit exclusion. The guidance is clear but not fully comprehensive.

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