Set Runtime Configuration Value

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: in-memory lifetime with process-lifetime scoping, no disk writes, loss on restart, idempotency of repeated sets, integer coercion semantics, that non-numeric values are reported rather than stored, and explicit assurance that nothing in Procore itself is modified. This goes well beyond what readOnlyHint=false communicates and prevents the agent from misjudging the side-effect profile. No contradiction found.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose, and while the description runs long (~170 words), each sentence provides distinct value covering usage, validation, persistence, idempotency, side effects, and return value. A capable editor could trim slightly, but there is no fat.

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?

With no output schema present, the description appropriately discloses the return value ('confirmation plus the full updated configuration'). Between annotations and text, the agent understands validation, side effects, scope, and return behavior completely. There are no material gaps.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by revealing coercion behavior, rejection semantics for invalid keys/values, and error-handling outcomes that the schema alone doesn't make explicit.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Sets the default company_id or project_id') and clearly distinguishes this tool by explicitly naming the sibling it feeds into ('procore_api_call') and the sibling used to confirm changes ('procore_get_config'). The scope and effect are 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('to switch project context mid-session instead of restarting the server') and points to procore_get_config as a follow-up to confirm state. This gives clear decision context against named alternatives.

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