Recycles An Adjustment Document.

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the provided annotations, such as that recycled documents 'can be restored from the recycle bin by an admin user', repeat calls return 404, and error payloads carry HTTP status codes. However, it internally contradicts itself by also claiming 'Permanently removes' and 'This cannot be undone', which conflicts with the soft-delete nature and undermines trust in the description. Annotations already flag destructive behavior, so the extra context is useful but flawed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains useful information about prerequisites, defaults, error handling, and the API endpoint. However, the sentence 'Permanently removes the recycles an adjustment document' is grammatically broken and contradictory, interrupting the flow. It also repeats 'Required parameters' which is already in the schema, adding minor redundancy.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers important context: soft-delete semantics, restoration possibility, parameter defaults, id resolution steps, and common error statuses. The internal contradiction about permanence leaves the actual behavior unclear, and the description does not mention what a successful response looks like, though this is less critical for a DELETE. Overall, it is mostly complete but flawed by the contradictory statement.

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?

The input schema provides per-parameter descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id 'default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted' and that id 'must identify an existing parent record', which is not in the schema. This additional context helps the agent understand parameter behavior beyond basic types.

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 action as 'performs a soft delete (recycle) of the adjustment document', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by resource type. However, the garbled phrase 'Permanently removes the recycles an adjustment document' introduces ambiguity about whether this is a soft or hard delete, preventing 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?

The description instructs to 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first', providing helpful prerequisites. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or differentiate from alternative recycle tools, but the context implies its use for adjustment documents only. The reference to 'matching' tools is generic and not specific.

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