Recycles A Transfer Document.

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations. Annotations include idempotentHint=true, but the description says 'a repeat call returns 404,' which implies non-idempotent behavior. Additionally, the description internally contradicts itself by calling the operation a 'soft delete' while also stating it 'Permanently removes' the document and 'cannot be undone.' This is both an annotation contradiction and an internal inconsistency, so transparency is severely lacking.

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 overly long and contains redundant phrases, such as repeating the need to confirm/resolve the id with the list tool. The sentence 'Permanently removes the recycles a transfer document' is awkwardly phrased. Important details are buried in contradictions and filler, making it far from concise.

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 attempts to cover preconditions, state restrictions, and error handling, but the contradictions (soft delete vs. permanent removal, idempotency vs. 404 on repeat) make it unreliable. There is no output schema, and the description fails to clearly explain return values. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds confusing information: it says company_id and project_id 'default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted,' yet both are marked as required in the schema and the description later lists them as required parameters. This contradiction undermines parameter understanding rather than adding useful semantics.

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 primary action: 'Performs a soft delete (recycle) of the transfer document.' This identifies the verb, resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like recycles_a_material or recycles_a_receipt. However, later the text claims 'Permanently removes' the document, which contradicts the soft-delete intent and slightly muddies purpose clarity.

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 explicit usage context: transfers in a Final state cannot be recycled, and it instructs to resolve the id with the matching show/list tool first. It also mentions that recycled transfers can be restored by an admin, implying an alternative restore workflow. While it doesn't name a specific alternative tool for restore, it offers clear constraints and prerequisites.

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