Recycle Materials In Bulk

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

This is an annotation contradiction. The annotations set idempotentHint=true, but the description states 'a repeat call returns 404', meaning the outcome differs on repeat calls, contradicting idempotency. Additionally, destructiveHint=true conflicts with 'Recycled materials can be restored from the recycle bin by an admin user' and the soft-delete claim. The description adds error-code details but is undermined by these direct contradictions.

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 and repetitive, containing multiple contradictory phrases (e.g., 'soft delete' vs 'permanently removes', 'can be restored' vs 'cannot be undone'). Every sentence does not earn its place; the internal inconsistencies make it less concise and harder to parse than a shorter, coherent statement would 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?

The description covers several aspects: action, safety confirmation, defaults, error codes, and the API endpoint. However, the contradictions about permanence and restorability leave the tool's actual behavior ambiguous, and there is no mention of what the response contains (given no output schema). The completeness is undermined by misleading and conflicting information.

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% with both parameters described as URL path parameters, so the schema already provides basic meaning. The description adds that company_id and project_id 'default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted', but the schema marks both as required, creating a direct contradiction. No additional formats, types, or validation rules are provided beyond the schema.

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 'Performs a soft delete (recycle) of multiple materials in a single request', which gives a specific verb and resource. However, it later says 'Permanently removes the recycle material. This cannot be undone', directly contradicting the soft-delete and restorable nature. This internal inconsistency muddies the primary purpose and makes it unclear whether this is a soft recycle or a permanent deletion.

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 provides a safety prerequisite ('Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling') and mentions that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this bulk operation from single-material recycle tools or restore tools, and the contradictory permanence statement confuses when this should be used.

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