Update Work Activity

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context: Procore-provided names cannot be changed, partial update semantics, company_id defaulting behavior, and error responses with common HTTP statuses. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the purpose, then covers constraints, parameter behavior, defaults, return values, error handling, and endpoint. No fluff or repetition; it is well-structured for an agent.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to provide parameters, what defaults exist, what to do before calling (resolve id), what to expect on success/failure, and the exact API endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning: top-level argument flattening, company_id default from config, id must reference an existing record resolved via list, and name is required but immutable for Procore-provided items. These details are not present in the schema and materially help correct invocation.

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: 'Updates a specified Work Activity.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create, list, show, delete, and bulk_update. It also provides the endpoint and API category, making the operation unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to update an existing single record, with guidance to resolve the id via a list tool first. It also notes that omitted fields keep current values, implying partial updates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like bulk_update_work_activities for batch scenarios, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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