Show Budget Modification

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing failure modes (401/403/404), the default behavior of project_id, that it returns a single JSON object, and that id must identify an existing record. These details go beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then provides defaults, return type, safety, and failure behavior. It is slightly verbose with the documentation link and API path, but each sentence carries informative weight. The structure is logical: purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, errors, and reference.

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 show tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, default behavior, required prerequisites (id resolution), and common error outcomes. The lack of an output schema is adequately compensated by describing the return as a single JSON object with the full field set.

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 covers both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value, and id must be resolved from a list tool. This clarifies how to obtain valid values beyond the schema's simple identifier 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 immediately states 'Returns detailed information on a specified Budget Modification' with a clear verb and resource. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is for when you already know which budget modification you want and need its full field set, contrasting with the list tool.

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 the tool: 'Use this when you already know which budget modification you want and need its full field set.' It also advises resolving the id with the matching list tool first, providing direct alternative guidance. The mention of project_id defaulting to the configured project adds context for invocation.

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