Update Timesheet Status

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

Goes well beyond annotations by detailing partial update semantics, project_id defaulting, return value on success, and specific error statuses (401/403/404) with their meanings. This is rich behavioral context that annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) do not provide.

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?

Well-structured and appropriately sized. The description leads with the core purpose, then covers updating semantics, defaults, return/error behavior, required parameters, and endpoint. Each sentence provides distinct value without 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 two-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it explains what it does, how partial updates work, project_id defaulting, success return, error payloads, required parameters, and API endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

Adds meaningful behavior for parameters: project_id defaults to procore_set_config value when omitted, and partial update guidance for timesheets. The schema covers both parameters but leaves the timesheets array items unspecified (items: {}), so the description partially compensates but does not fully define the expected object structure.

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 tool updates Timesheet statuses to pending/approved for a specific project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_timesheet_project and update_timecard_entries by focusing on approval status changes, reinforced by the endpoint PATCH /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/timesheets/update_approval.

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 usage context: updates approval status, supports partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), and explains the project_id default behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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