Update Timesheet To Budget Configuration

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing partial-update semantics, the company_id default, the return value (though mislabeled as 'modified timesheet'), and common failure HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This provides substantial behavioral context; the slight resource naming inaccuracy prevents a perfect score.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose: operation, update semantics, defaulting, return value, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient despite its length.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it specifies the operation, partial-update behavior, return value, common error cases, required parameters, and endpoint. The only noteworthy gap is the imprecise reference to the resource being updated, which is a clarity issue rather than a completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that company_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config and that only provided fields are changed (relevant for all body parameters). This exceeds the schema-only baseline.

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 states 'Updates an existing timesheet for the specified Procore company,' which identifies the verb and scope but misidentifies the resource—it should be the 'timesheet-to-budget configuration' rather than the timesheet itself. The name and endpoint clarify the target, but the description's wording could mislead an agent about what is being updated.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing configuration with partial updates ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values') and notes that company_id can default from procore_set_config. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_timesheet_to_budget_configuration or exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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