Show BIM Model Revision Plan

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It goes beyond by disclosing failure modes (401/403/404) and return format (single JSON object), which is valuable operational context not present in 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 is information-dense but well-organized, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing usage, error, and API context. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to repeating required parameters already in the schema.

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?

The description covers usage context, prerequisites, return type, error behavior, and API endpoint. With no output schema, it does not list specific fields but mentions 'full field set,' which is adequate for a show endpoint. The presence of annotations and schema covers safety and parameter details, making this reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance for the 'id' parameter: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This explains how to obtain a valid id, which the schema alone does not convey. The 'view' parameter semantics are already fully described in 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 the tool returns a single BIM Model Revision Plan item, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'single' and 'full field set' and by referencing the matching list tool for id resolution.

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 states when to use: 'when you already know which BIM model revision plan you want and need its full field set.' Also provides a prerequisite and alternative: resolve id with the matching list tool first. This gives clear usage context versus alternatives.

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