Retrieve Recycled Action

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It details the partial-update behavior ('Send only the fields you intend to change'), the default for project_id, the requirement for an existing parent record, the success return value, and specific error statuses (401, 403, 404). The annotations only provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description enriches these with concrete operational semantics.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose, then layers in usage details, return behavior, and error codes. It is a bit dense and repeats the required parameters from the schema, but every sentence contributes useful operational guidance. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a restore operation with several behavioral nuances.

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 restore operation with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, partial update semantics, default project_id, prerequisite id resolution, success return value, common error statuses, required parameters, and the API endpoint. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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% (all three parameters are described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for project_id (default behavior) and id (must identify an existing parent record, resolve via list tool). It does not add detail for incident_id, but the schema already describes it as a query parameter, so the overall parameter semantics are well-supported.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Restores a soft-deleted incident action from the Recycle Bin back to its parent incident.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_recycled_actions, show_recycled_action, or destroy_action, while also conveying the exact scope of the operation.

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 usage context: it states that project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, and crucially instructs the agent to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' for the id parameter. While it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or compare to all alternatives, the restore purpose inherently separates it from list/show/destroy tools, and the pointer to a list tool is a valuable guideline.

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