Updates Properties On A Single Shipment.

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds rich behavioral context: partial update semantics, defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id, prerequisite of resolving id via list tool, return value, and specific HTTP error statuses (401/403/404). This far exceeds what annotations provide.

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 a dense, well-organized paragraph where every sentence contributes value: purpose, workflow usage, partial update behavior, parameter defaults, prerequisite resolution, return value, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. No redundant or filler content.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers return value, error scenarios, prerequisite list-tool step, and endpoint details. It falls short only in not listing all valid body fields or status transition values, but the 'such as' examples provide partial guidance. Overall, quite complete for an agent to invoke correctly in most cases.

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 descriptions cover all 3 parameters with basic identifier definitions, but the description adds crucial meaning: company_id/project_id default from procore_set_config, id must identify an existing parent record. However, it only gives examples of updatable fields (title, delivery date, notes, status) without enumerating full body parameters, so the agent still lacks complete field-level knowledge.

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 header fields on a shipment document (title, delivery date, notes, status), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling line-item updates by focusing on header fields, making its purpose 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use status transitions for workflow states, send only changed fields, default company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, and resolve id with the list tool first. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the header-vs-line-item scope implies where it fits among siblings.

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