Publish Drawing Revisions

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

The description discloses error payload behavior (401, 403, 404), the defaulting of project_id from procore_set_config, and the fact that it returns Procore's response. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't detail the core side effects of publishing (e.g., notifications) beyond the schema's distribute parameter.

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 written in three sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding useful defaults and error codes. Each sentence contributes information without fluff, though it packs in endpoint details that could be considered redundant.

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?

The description covers error codes, defaults, and permissions, which is helpful for a mutation tool. However, it lacks a clear explanation of what publishing entails (e.g., making revisions visible, distributing) and how drawing_set_id relates to individual revisions. The absence of output schema makes the vague 'returns Procore's response' less informative.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by specifying that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, which is not in the schema. It also reiterates required parameters but doesn't explain the relationship between drawing_set_id and the revisions being published.

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 publishes drawing revisions within a specified project, using a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_drawing_revisions and update_drawing_revision by focusing on the publish action.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list or update drawing revisions. It provides context about defaults and error scenarios but no guidance on tool selection or exclusions.

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