Review Requested Changes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, aligning with the description's update behavior. No additional behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, error cases) are provided, but the description does not contradict annotations.

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 includes useful info like the Procore API details, but is somewhat verbose with redundant phrases (e.g., 'only the supplied fields are changed'). It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given the simple input schema (2 params, no output schema) and many sibling tools, the description adequately explains the core function but lacks depth on what 'review' entails (e.g., state change, approval). It is minimally complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. However, the description only reiterates 'Required parameters: project_id' and describes requested_changes vaguely as 'the requested changes for this Schedule (Legacy) operation', adding no meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it is an update operation for Schedule (Legacy) records, specifically for reviewing requested changes. It identifies the resource and action, though the name could lead to some ambiguity with the 'review' verb.

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 mentions the required parameter project_id but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like review_requested_changes_v1_0 or create_requested_change. The 'only the supplied fields are changed' is a general fact not specific to usage context.

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