Update Vendor Project Roles

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond annotations: it warns that 'Will remove any vendors associated with the role if they are not included in the vendor_ids parameter' (replacement semantics), explains partial update behavior with 'omitted fields keep their current values,' and describes error responses including common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404). This significantly aids an agent in predicting side effects and handling failures, going well beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core purpose, then methodically covers removal behavior, partial updates, ID resolution, return value, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds operational value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects for an update tool: purpose, side effects, parameter defaults, preconditions (resolve id first), success return, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Even without an output schema, it specifies what is returned ('modified vendor project role'). There are no significant gaps given the tool's moderate complexity.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds useful semantics for vendor_ids (removal of omitted vendors) and id resolution guidance. However, it contains a contradiction: it claims 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted,' yet the input schema marks project_id as required. This conflicting guidance undermines trust and could lead to failed calls if an agent omits project_id based on the description.

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 'Set which Vendors are associated with a specific Project Role,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_user_project_roles' by explicitly targeting vendor-role associations, and from create/delete project role tools by describing an update operation on existing associations.

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: 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This tells the agent how to obtain necessary IDs and when the default project applies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for updating user roles, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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