Copy Markups

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses atomicity, that the original is untouched, that the operation creates an independent copy (HTTP 201), permission requirements, environment-gated flag behavior, default value behavior for company_id and project_id, and common error statuses. This is rich behavioral context that fully informs the agent of side effects and failure modes.

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 long but well-structured, with each sentence providing distinct information: purpose, permissions, atomicity, return value, errors, required parameters, and API reference. The 'Required parameters' sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers permissions, environment flags, atomicity, return status, error semantics, and defaults. The only minor gap is a detailed response structure, but the HTTP 201 and 'returns it' provide sufficient guidance for an agent.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and that source_item_id and target_item_id correspond to the source and target documents. While item_type is not elaborated beyond the schema enum, the defaulting behavior is a valuable addition.

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 states a specific action: 'Copies all public WORKSPACE markups from a source document to a target document.' It clearly identifies the verb (copies), the resource (markups), the scope (public WORKSPACE), and the source/target relationship. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_a_new_markup or modify_markups.

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 clear context for use: copying markups between documents, with required permissions and configurable target permission checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection. Since there is no 'use instead of' statement, it stops short of a 5.

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