Updates A Single Receipt Line Item.

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the partial-update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), the default behavior for company_id/project_id, error responses (400, 401, 403, 404) and return value. This provides substantial transparency for a write operation. No contradiction with 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 longer than average but every sentence adds unique information: purpose, precondition, error handling, partial update, defaults, prerequisites, return, error codes, required params, and endpoint. It is logically structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 most operational aspects: preconditions, partial-update semantics, error codes, and required parameters, making it largely self-sufficient. However, it states that updatable properties include 'date, quantity, status, and location' while the schema only exposes quantity_expected and quantity_received, which could mislead an agent into attempting unsupported fields. This gap prevents a perfect score.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds valuable context by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and that receipt_id and id must refer to existing records. However, it doesn't elaborate on the body fields beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the action ('updating properties') and the specific resource ('a specific receipt line item'), and gives examples of properties. The endpoint path and API version make it unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deletes_a_receipt_line_item' and 'updates_a_receipt_header'.

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 a clear context: use for updating a receipt line item, with the precondition that the receipt must not be in a Final state. It also advises resolving parent record IDs with the matching list tool first, which is a practical usage guideline. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for create/delete, but the purpose and preconditions adequately differentiate.

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