Update Timecard Entry Signature (Project)

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: partial-update semantics, return of the modified object, common HTTP error codes (401/403/404), and the endpoint. No contradictions 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?

Every sentence in the description earns its place: purpose, update semantics, defaults, prerequisites, return value, error behavior, required parameters, and endpoint. It is information-dense but well-organized and front-loaded, with 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers success return, failure payloads with status codes, default values, prerequisite lookup, and API location. The sibling list is large, but this description sufficiently handles the decision context without needing explicit alternatives.

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% and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: project_id's default from procore_set_config, the requirement that id refers to an existing parent, and that omitted fields retain current values. This elevates parameter understanding.

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 verb+resource statement: 'Update timecard entry signature with the provided signature ID.' The endpoint path (PATCH .../sign) and title suffix '(Project)' further distinguish it from sibling tools like remove_signature_from_timecard_entry_project. Clear 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?

Provides partial-update guidance ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), explains the project_id default from procore_set_config, and instructs to resolve the id via the matching list tool first. Does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for effective use.

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