Restore Company Form Template

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

Annotations already cover readOnly (false), destructive (false), and idempotent (true). The description adds value by disclosing the return payload ('Returns the modified company form template') and the error payload with HTTP statuses. It also notes the company_id default behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists, and the additional context goes beyond the structured fields.

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 information-dense but contains a confusing, likely copy-pasted sentence: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values.' This is irrelevant to a restore operation and could mislead the agent. The contradictory statement that company_id is both required and defaults to a config value also undermines clarity. Despite these issues, the rest is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with good annotations, the description covers the essential context: the operation, prerequisites, return value, and error handling. It includes the endpoint. The only gap is the unrelated patch/update sentence and the slight inconsistency about company_id, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for both parameters, but the description goes further: it explains that company_id defaults to the configured Procore company, and that id must reference an existing recycle bin entry found via a list tool. These details give practical meaning beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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: 'Restores the specified Form Template from Recycle Bin.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling restore tools like restore_project_form and restore_recycled_checklist_template. It also names the exact API area and endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 actionable guidance: resolve the id with the matching list tool first, and explains the company_id default behavior. It also describes common failure statuses (401, 403, 404), helping the agent anticipate errors. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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