Convert Private Layer To Public

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds substantial context: it acts on the private layer, returns Procore's response, and details common failure HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). It also notes configuration defaults, going 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 efficiently organized: purpose first, then parameter defaults, prerequisite, return behavior, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers the return value ('Procore's response'), error semantics, required parameters, prerequisites, and the exact REST endpoint. This is complete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id default to config values when omitted and that layer_id must identify an existing parent record, to be resolved via a list tool. This goes beyond the generic 'URL path parameter' schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Convert a private layer to public, making it accessible to all project users.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_layer_by_id or update_layer, and the effect is explicitly stated.

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 gives clear context: company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values, and layer_id must be resolved with the matching list tool first. It also explains failure modes, but it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or name alternative conversion paths.

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