Restore Environmental

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds valuable context: partial update behavior ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), default project_id behavior, and detailed error scenarios (401, 403, 404). No contradiction with 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 longer than average, but each sentence earns its place: purpose, partial update semantics, defaults, resolver instruction, return value, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main action and remains structured and readable.

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 tool is a restore operation with partial update behavior and several failure modes. The description covers the return value, required parameters, error statuses, and endpoint. With no output schema, this is sufficient. It could mention incident_id more explicitly, but schema already documents it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that project_id has a default from config and that id must be an existing parent record, which clarifies how to obtain correct values. Incident_id is not explained further, but schema already covers it.

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+resource+scope: 'Restores the specified environmental record from the Recycle Bin back to active status.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like destroy_environmental or update_environmental, and the endpoint is provided.

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 practical guidance: project_id defaults to procore_set_config, and id must be resolved via the matching list tool first. This implies when to use the tool and how to prepare parameters, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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