Refresh A Workflow Instance (Company)

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains side effects (updates role assignees, retries failed steps), return value (Procore's response), and error handling (401/403/404). It doesn't contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the 'defaults' note about company_id conflicts with the schema but not 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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then prerequisites, behavioral info, error handling, and API reference. Each sentence adds value, though the length is somewhat substantial. It's dense but well-organized.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, prerequisites, side effects, return behavior, and common errors. This is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even accounting for the minor company_id default discrepancy.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (company_id defaults, id must resolve), but this is partially contradictory since the schema marks company_id as required. The added value is modest and undermined by the inconsistency.

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 operation: 'Refreshes and retries a blocked company workflow instance. Updates role assignees and retries failed steps.' It specifies the resource (company workflow instance) and the action (refresh/retry), distinguishing it from siblings like refresh_a_workflow_instance_project and respond_to_a_workflow_instance_company.

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 usage context: use when a workflow instance is blocked and needs retry. It also provides prerequisites (resolve id with list tool first) and notes the company_id default. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it's slightly below the highest bar.

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