Item-Scoped Document Markup Permissions

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

Given annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description still adds value by confirming "Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore," detailing error responses ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, 404 when an id does not resolve'), and noting that company_id/project_id default to procore_set_config values. This goes beyond annotation metadata.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and then systematically covers usage, parameters, return type, read-only guarantee, and error handling. Every sentence carries operational value; while longer than the high example, it remains tightly packed without redundancy.

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 compensates by stating the return shape ('single JSON object') and failure modes. It does not enumerate the fields inside the permission object, which would further help, but the provided coverage of prerequisites, defaults, and endpoint details makes it nearly complete for a read-only lookup tool.

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 substantive context: it enumerates valid item_type values, explains that item_type/item_id must reference existing parent records and should be resolved via a list tool, and documents defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id. This meaningfully exceeds the schema's terse URL-path 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 clear verb-plus-resource statement: "Returns the user's tool-level permissions for the specified document, identified by item_type and item_id in the URL path." It also enumerates allowed item_type values, and the 'item-scoped' naming plus the URL path structure differentiates it from broader permission tools like sibling 'document_markup_permissions'.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: "Use this when you already know which item-scoped document markup permission you want and need its full field set," and instructs to resolve item_type/item_id with the matching list tool first. It also clarifies defaults for company_id/project_id, giving clear context, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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