Update Timecard Entry (Company)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), it discloses crucial behavioral traits: PATCH-style partial updates, the defaulting behavior for company_id, that id must reference an existing parent record, the success return payload, and common HTTP error statuses (401, 403, 404). This substantially exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core verb and update semantics. Every sentence serves a purpose: usage rule, default behavior, return value, error handling, required parameters, API grouping, and endpoint. No filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers intended behavior, prerequisites, defaults, success/error responses, and required parameters. The only notable gap is the lack of field-level detail for the timecard_entry object, but the schema itself also omits this, so the description is still largely sufficient.

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, but the description adds real meaning: id must be an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list tool; company_id has a configuration default when omitted. It does not add detail to the opaque timecard_entry object, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 a specific action ('Updates an existing timecard entry') and clearly scopes it to 'the specified Procore company', reinforced by the endpoint companies/{company_id}/timecard_entries/{id}. This differentiates it from sibling update_timecard_entry_project and other timecard tools.

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: partial update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), company_id defaulting from procore_set_config, and the prerequisite of resolving id with a matching list tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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