Retrieve Property Damage

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

Adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: describes the restore effect, partial update semantics, default project_id from procore_set_config, and error payload specifics (401, 403, 404). Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description enriches this with practical context.

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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence contributes useful information: purpose, update semantics, defaults, prerequisites, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. It's front-loaded with the primary action and remains focused without extraneous filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating the success return value ('Returns the modified property damage on success') and explaining failure modes. It covers prerequisites, defaults, and scope, making it sufficiently complete for a restore operation in a recycle bin context.

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 all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the project_id default, the need to resolve id via a list tool, and the requirement that id references an existing parent record. This goes beyond the schema's basic field 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Restores the specified property damage record from the recycle bin, making it active again.' This is a specific verb (restores) and resource (property damage record), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_property_damages or destroy_property_damage by highlighting the recycle bin context.

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?

Provides clear usage context: instructs to send only fields to change, explains project_id default behavior, and explicitly says to resolve id with the matching list tool first. While it doesn't explicitly compare against alternative restore tools, the guidance is sufficient for proper invocation.

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