Update Timecard Entry Signature (Project)

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), which the description confirms. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned. However, no further behavioral details (e.g., auth requirements, side effects on other records, rate limits) are disclosed. The description provides marginal value beyond 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 concise (5 sentences), front-loads the main action, and includes essential details (usage, return, required params, API context). No redundant information; every sentence contributes. Minor point: the last two sentences about Procore API and endpoint may be extraneous for an AI agent but do not harm conciseness.

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 3-parameter update tool, the description is mostly complete. It covers the operation, partial update behavior, and return. No error conditions or prerequisites are mentioned, and the term 'Field Productivity records' is not explained. Without an output schema, the return description is helpful but minimal.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already described (id, project_id, signature_id). The description lists the required parameters but does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema. Under the high coverage baseline, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 action ('Update'), the resource ('timecard entry signature'), and the specific field ('signature_id'). It also mentions the broader context of updating Field Productivity records, but the primary purpose is unambiguous. Sibling tools like update_timecard_entry_project exist, but this tool's specific signature update is distinguished by its name and description.

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 Field Productivity records' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_timecard_entry_project). No when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with siblings is provided. The intended use is implied by the tool's specificity, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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