Update User Permission (Deprecated)

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

The description discloses partial update semantics, company_id defaulting to procore_set_config, return value, and common failure codes (401/403/404), all beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false).

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 detailed but every sentence provides necessary context: deprecation, partial update, defaults, failure modes, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the purpose and deprecation warning, making it efficiently structured.

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?

This is a deprecated mutation tool with no output schema, but the description covers what it does, why it should be avoided, how to use it safely, what to expect on success/failure, and where the endpoint lives. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to either avoid it or invoke it 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?

Schema already covers each parameter with descriptions, but the description adds critical context about partial update behavior and the company_id default. However, there is a slight inconsistency: schema marks company_id as required while description says it defaults when omitted, so the added semantics are valuable but not perfectly aligned.

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 a Company Managed Equipment User Permission with a specific verb and resource. It immediately flags the endpoint as deprecated and directs to a newer version, distinguishing it from other tools.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is deprecated and scheduled for removal, instructing the agent to prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints to find it. Also provides patch usage guidance (send only fields to change) and notes the company_id default, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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