Reactivate Company Vendor

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

The description adds behavior beyond annotations by explaining the return value ('Returns the modified company vendor'), error payload format with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and the partial-update behavior (omitted fields keep current values). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them; it enriches them with operational details.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, update semantics, defaulting, id resolution, return value, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and does not waste words on restating the title or schema.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to form the request, defaults, id resolution, expected success response, and possible failures. The absence of an output schema is compensated by stating the return value. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that company_id defaults to the configured value when omitted and that id must resolve an existing parent record, which complements the schema's basic path-parameter descriptions. It also lists required parameters explicitly, reinforcing schema requirements.

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 'Reactivate a specified Company Vendor,' a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like reactivate_project_vendor or reactivate_company_user. The endpoint and API location further confirm the exact scope and operation.

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 practical guidance: 'Send only the fields you intend to change' clarifies partial update semantics, and 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' explicitly directs the agent to discover valid ids. It also notes company_id defaults from procore_set_config, giving usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the instructions are sufficient for correct invocation.

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