Retrieve Recycled Incident

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

Adds context beyond annotations: restores associated records, returns modified incident, lists error codes (401/403/404), and documents project_id default from procore_set_config. But the sentence 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' is misleading given the schema only allows path parameters and additionalProperties is false.

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 information-dense but includes redundant success statements ('Returns 200 OK on success' and 'Returns the modified recycled incident on success') and an irrelevant PATCH-style instruction, making it less crisp than it could be.

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?

Covers purpose, required params, default behavior, id resolution, return value, and common errors — quite complete for a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema. The main detractor is the misleading field-sending sentence, but the overall coverage is strong.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful operational details: project_id defaults to procore_set_config value, and id must resolve to an existing parent record via the matching list tool.

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?

Description opens with 'Restores the specified incident from the recycle bin, making it active again' — a specific verb and resource. It clarifies that the incident and associated records (injuries, near_misses, attachments) are recovered, distinguishing it from sibling show/list tools.

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?

States when to use (restore from recycle bin) and instructs the agent to resolve id with the matching list tool first, plus notes required parameters and common failure scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with show_recycled_incident or state when not to use.

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