Refresh A Workflow Instance (Project)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete side effects: 'Updates role assignees and retries failed steps.' It also details error behavior with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404) and explains that it returns Procore's response. This substantially informs the agent of the tool's runtime behavior and failure modes, exceeding the annotation baseline.

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, then efficiently covers defaults, error handling, and API endpoint. Each sentence adds distinct value with no filler or redundant restatement of annotations, achieving a high signal-to-noise ratio.

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?

Given the operation's complexity, the description covers purpose, side effects, parameter defaults, error statuses, and prerequisite steps. However, it only vaguely states 'returns Procore's response for the operation' without detailing the success response shape, which would be valuable since no output schema is provided.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds useful parameter semantics: company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and id must identify an existing record resolved via a list tool first. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'URL path parameter' descriptions and aids correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Refreshes and retries a blocked project workflow instance.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'refresh_a_workflow_instance_company' by explicitly scoping to project-level workflows, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 context for when to use the tool: when a project workflow instance is blocked and needs retry of failed steps. It also provides a prerequisite instruction to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' and explains defaults from procore_set_config, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., vs. restart or respond).

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