Update User Project Roles

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

The description discloses destructive-adjacent behavior (removes users not in `user_ids`), partial-update behavior, defaulting of `project_id`, return value, and common error statuses (401/403/404). These go well beyond the annotations and are critical for safe invocation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details and error information. It's slightly verbose with API endpoint details, but every sentence contributes valuable information 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 complex update tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (id resolution), defaults, return value, error handling, and required parameters. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to 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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential semantics: `user_ids` is a replacement list with removal semantics, `project_id` has a default fallback, and `id` must be resolved via a list tool. It also corrects the schema's 'Company Role' typo by implying Project Role.

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: 'Set which Users are associated with a specific Project Role.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_vendor_project_roles (users vs vendors) and update_project_user (single user update vs role association).

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?

It provides actionable guidance: resolve `id` with the matching list tool first, `project_id` defaults to procore_set_config when omitted, and partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over similar tools.

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