Download Specification Section Revision

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: response format ('JSON object containing the generated file or a download URL'), error handling with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and defaulting behavior for omitted parameters. This exceeds the baseline and enriches the agent's understanding 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 efficiently packed with useful information, front-loading the purpose and usage. Each sentence adds value (return, usage, defaults, response, safety, errors, required params, endpoint). The 'Required parameters' line slightly duplicates the schema, but overall structure is clear and focused.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 flat parameters, no output schema), the description is highly complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, response shape, error behavior, API version, and endpoint. The agent has all necessary context to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with basic fields. The description enhances meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id default to values set by procore_set_config when omitted, and that id must identify an existing parent record to be resolved via a list tool. This goes beyond the schema's simple identifier 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 tool 'returns the specification section revision download' and specifies the exact use case: 'when you already know which specification section revision you want.' It distinguishes from list/search tools by focusing on a single known resource and includes the API endpoint for precision.

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 clear context: use when you already know the revision and need its full field set. It also instructs to resolve the id with the matching list tool first and notes that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, effectively guiding when and how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other download variants like download_single_pdf or download_zip.

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