Recycles An Inter-Project Transfer Document.

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

The description reveals several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the Draft state restriction, idempotent behavior (repeat call returns 404), defaulting of company_id/project_id from procore_set_config, and failure HTTP statuses. However, the internal contradiction between 'Moves to the recycle bin' and 'Permanently removes' undermines transparency about whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant flaw.

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 contains redundant guidance: 'Confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling' and later 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' say the same thing. It also includes a garbled sentence 'Permanently removes the recycles an inter-project transfer document' that appears to be an editing error. The structure is not tight and the text wastes words.

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 many important aspects: Draft state restriction, error handling (401, 403, 404), idempotent behavior (404 on repeat), and the API endpoint. However, it does not describe what a successful response looks like, which is needed since there is no output schema. The unresolved contradiction about permanent deletion vs recycle bin leaves a critical gap in understanding the tool's actual effect.

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 descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'company_id and project_id default to the values set by procore_set_config when omitted', but the schema marks these as required, creating a direct contradiction. It also says 'id must identify an existing parent record', which is vague and potentially misleading for an inter-project transfer document id. The extra information confuses rather than clarifies.

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 'Moves the specified inter-project transfer to the recycle bin' which is a specific verb and resource. It also adds a scope constraint (Draft state only). However, the later sentence 'Permanently removes the recycles an inter-project transfer document' contradicts the recycle bin concept, creating ambiguity about whether this is a permanent hard delete or a soft delete to a recycle bin. This prevents 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 gives clear guidance on prerequisites: only Draft state transfers can be recycled, and the agent should confirm the target id with the matching show or list tool before calling. It also provides error statuses (401, 403, 404) to help diagnose failures. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, but the Draft state restriction is a strong condition.

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