List Requested Changes (Deprecated)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds deprecation context and specific error codes (401, 403, 404). However, the claim that it returns a single JSON object is misleading for a list endpoint, and the description does not disclose pagination behavior despite page/per_page parameters.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core action, but it contains contradictory statements (list vs single object) and somewhat disjointed information about deprecation, usage, and failures. It is not as tight as it could be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify return values and pagination. It only says 'Returns a single JSON object' which is questionable for a list operation, and it does not explain how page, per_page, or task_id affect the response. The deprecation and error hints help, but the return value ambiguity is a major gap.

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%, and the description adds no new parameter details beyond mentioning that project_id is required. The schema already documents all parameters, so the description provides no added semantic value.

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+resource ('List all Requested Changes of a Task'), but the statement 'Returns a single JSON object describing the requested change' contradicts the list semantics implied by the tool name and the pagination parameters. This internal inconsistency makes the primary purpose ambiguous.

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 explicitly warns that the endpoint is deprecated and instructs the agent to prefer a newer version and use procore_search_endpoints to find it. It also gives a conditional use case ('when you already know which requested change you want'), though this conflicts with the list behavior.

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