Update Timesheet

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

The description discloses that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and returns the modified object on success. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond the 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 three sentences plus some API routing info. It is fairly efficient but includes a line about Procore API and endpoint that could be omitted since the tool name implies the version.

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 PATCH update tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, required params, and return value. It lacks details on error handling or validation, but is generally complete given the simplicity and absence of output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description highlights required parameters (project_id, id) and mentions the API endpoint, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 purpose as updating a timesheet associated with a specific project, and specifies it updates Field Productivity records. However, it does not differentiate from sibling timesheet update tools like 'update_timesheet_status' or 'update_timesheet_project' (without version).

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 to use this tool for updating existing Field Productivity records and lists required parameters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other timesheet update siblings or when not to use it.

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