Retrieve Recycled Observation

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

Discloses that `deleted_at` is cleared, visibility to standard endpoints is restored, and notes partial-update semantics and error payload formats. However, the claim that 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' contradicts the schema's required field, introducing minor ambiguity about the parameter's optionality.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence carries operational value: effects, batch alternative, field semantics, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint reference. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with a simple 2-param schema and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers behavior, return value, error codes, endpoint identity, and API reference, giving an agent all the context needed to invoke it correctly and anticipate outcomes.

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 covers 100% of params, but the description adds meaningful guidance: resolving id with the list tool, the project_id default behavior (even if contradictory), and explicit mention of required parameters. This goes beyond the schema's bare URL-path 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 opens with 'Restores a single Observation from the recycle bin and returns it' — a specific verb (restores), resource (Observation), and scope (single). It also explicitly contrasts with the batch restore endpoint, distinguishing it from related siblings like retrieve_recycled_witness_statement and list_recycled_observation_items.

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?

Explicitly names the batch alternative (`PATCH /rest/v1.0/observations/items/batch_restore_async`) and advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first. It also covers common error scenarios (401, 403, 404), setting clear expectations for when and how to use the tool.

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