Retrieve Recycled Action

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of updating is consistent. It adds 'only the supplied fields are changed' which is useful but not exceptional. No contradictions.

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 cluttered with API version and endpoint details ('Procore API (v1.1): Project Management > Incidents. Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.1/...') that are not useful for an AI agent selecting a tool. The mixed 'retrieve' and 'update' phrasing wastes space.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only vaguely says 'returns the modified object on success' without specifying structure. The incident_id parameter is undocumented in the description, and the tool's true nature (restore vs retrieve) is not clarified.

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 3 parameters with descriptions. The description reiterates required parameters (project_id, id) but does not explain incident_id. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts by saying 'Retrieves a specific Recycled Action' but then immediately says 'Use this to update an existing Incidents' and 'Updates the specified Incidents'. This contradiction makes the actual purpose unclear—it's actually a restore/update operation, not a retrieval. The tool name 'retrieve_recycled_action' adds to the confusion.

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 some usage context by stating 'Use this to update an existing Incidents (only the supplied fields are changed)' and lists required parameters. However, it fails to contrast with sibling tools like 'restore_recycled_action_plan' or specify when not to use this tool, limiting the guidance.

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