Update Timecard Entries

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

Annotations already classify this as a write, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond those hints: partial-update semantics ('omitted fields keep their current values'), project_id defaulting to procore_set_config, return of the modified entry on success, and specific failure HTTP statuses (401/403/404). 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 information-dense but compact, leading with the core action, then covering update semantics, defaults, return value, error payload, and endpoint reference. Each sentence earns its place without filler or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description covers action, partial update, defaulting, success response, failure modes, and endpoint. It stops short of explaining the exact structure of the timecard_entries payload, but the schema provides some type information, and the behavioral details are robust enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3. The description improves on this by explaining partial-update behavior and project_id defaulting, and by naming required parameters. However, it creates slight ambiguity by listing project_id as required while also saying it defaults when omitted, and it does not elaborate on the timecard_entries array structure beyond the schema's generic 'timesheet object'.

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 opens with 'Update the date of Timecard Entries associated with the specific Project,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes the tool by referencing the plurals 'Timecard Entries' and the PATCH endpoint, setting it apart from singular or bulk sibling tools like update_timecard_entry and bulk_update_timecard_entries.

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 gives clear usage context: update timecard entries for a specific project, send only changed fields, and note that project_id defaults from procore_set_config. It lists required parameters and the API area. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for multi-entry date updates.

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