Restore Materials In Bulk

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: admin permission requirement, partial update semantics (omitted fields retain current values), defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id, return value on success, and detailed error payload explanations with common HTTP status codes. This enriches the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) without contradiction.

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 dense with useful information, front-loaded with the admin restriction, and follows a logical flow: purpose, update behavior, defaults, return value, errors, required parameters, and API reference. It is slightly long and redundantly lists required parameters already present in the schema, but no sentence is wasted.

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 bulk restore tool with three required parameters and a clear endpoint, the description covers all major usage aspects: permissions, partial update, defaults, success/failure behavior, and API location. The only notable gap is the lack of detail on the structure of resource_guids (array items are untyped in the schema), but this does not prevent effective use.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values, and that omitted fields keep current values, which clarifies the patch semantics beyond what the schema states. However, the exact composition of resource_guids is not elaborated.

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 tool's purpose: restoring materials from the recycle bin in bulk. It specifies the action ('restore'), the resource ('materials'), and the scope ('bulk'), and distinguishes it from siblings like recycle_materials_in_bulk by explicitly mentioning 'from the recycle bin'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, including admin-only restriction, partial update behavior, and default values from procore_set_config. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., recycle_materials_in_bulk) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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