Retrieve Recycled RFI

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics, config-driven project_id defaulting, expected failure modes with HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and the success return value. This is rich, actionable context for an agent.

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 organized logically: purpose, behavior, parameters, returns, errors, and endpoint. It front-loads the key action and avoids excessive length. The redundant 'Required parameters' sentence and the contradictory project_id default add a little noise, but overall it is efficient.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, return value, error semantics, and API endpoint. It is nearly complete, but the unresolved ambiguity around 'retrieve' vs. update behavior and the project_id default contradiction keep it from being fully reliable.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds helpful id-resolution guidance, but it contradicts the schema by saying 'project_id defaults... when omitted' even though project_id is required in the schema and also listed as required later in the description. This internal inconsistency is misleading and lowers the value below baseline.

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 first sentence clearly states the action: 'Retrieve a specified RFI from the Recycle Bin,' which distinguishes it from list_recycled_rfis and recycle_rfi. However, the immediately following update semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change') blur whether this is a read/restore or a partial-update operation, making the purpose slightly ambiguous.

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 useful prerequisites: resolve the id with 'the matching list tool first' and project_id can come from procore_set_config. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the recycle-bin scope gives clear contextual guidance.

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