Recycles A Material Requirement.

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: the conditional recycling of items, the constraint that items connected to other documents cannot be recycled, the irreversibility, the repeat call returning 404, and the specific error codes (401, 403, 404) with failure payload format. It also explains the idempotent behavior (repeat call 404) consistent with idempotentHint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 verbose and includes redundant content (e.g., listing required parameters already in the schema) and a grammatical error in 'Permanently removes the recycles a material requirement.' Some valuable information is buried, and the structure could be tightened. It is not as concise as the ideal.

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?

For a delete operation, the description is quite comprehensive: it covers behavior, prerequisites, state constraints, error handling, defaults, and the API endpoint. It lacks explicit mention of the success response (e.g., 204), but that is a minor gap given the extensive coverage.

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?

While the schema already describes each parameter, the description adds meaningful context: company_id/project_id fall back to procore_set_config values, and id must be resolved via a list tool. It further elaborates on the recycle_items behavior (associated items and the connectivity constraint), going beyond the schema's simple 'if true' description.

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 identifies the action ('Recycles a material requirement') and distinguishes it from sibling recycle tools (e.g., recycles_a_material, recycles_a_transfer_document). However, the sentence 'Permanently removes the recycles a material requirement' is grammatically garbled and introduces ambiguity about soft vs hard delete, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

Provides clear context: explains the recycle_items flag behavior, the 400 error for Final state, and instructs to confirm the id with a matching show/list tool before calling. It also notes defaults for company_id/project_id from procore_set_config. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for invocation.

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