Close Checklist (Inspection)

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces idempotency: 'Closing an already-closed Inspection is idempotent and returns the Inspection in its current state.' It also adds behavioral context beyond annotations: error payloads with common HTTP status codes (401, 403, 404), the return value, and the project_id default behavior. No contradictions 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 detailed but well-structured, starting with the core action, then key behaviors, parameters, errors, and API location. It is not excessively long given the amount of useful context. However, the statement 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' is slightly confusing given that the tool does not accept additional update parameters, which could be seen as minor redundancy or potential confusion.

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, the description correctly states 'Returns the modified checklist on success.' It covers error handling, parameter resolution, idempotency, default values, and the API endpoint. For a simple two-parameter close action, this is thorough and complete, especially with the supporting annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted, and id must identify an existing parent record, with guidance to resolve it via the list tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic URL path parameter descriptions.

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 action: 'Closes the specified Checklist (Inspection) by transitioning its status to `closed`.' It specifies the resource and the state change, and differentiates from siblings like update_checklist_inspection by noting it is a 'dedicated endpoint that performs only the close action and does not accept any additional update parameters.'

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 context on when to use this tool: it is specifically for closing an Inspection, not for general updates. It also advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first and notes the project_id default from procore_set_config. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'dedicated endpoint' phrasing implies the distinction clearly.

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