Show Commitment Change Order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: error semantics (401, 403, 404), project_id default behavior, and explicit 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' This is useful additional context.

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?

Description is dense but well-structured: opens with purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter behavior, then endpoint and error notes. Every sentence adds information. The endpoint path is slightly redundant with the schema, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects for correct invocation: usage context, configuration limitations, parameter resolution workflow, error cases, and return type. An agent has enough context to select and call this tool confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema for project_id (defaults to procore_set_config when omitted) and id (must resolve to an existing parent record), supplementing the schema's basic parameter 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?

Clearly states 'Show the details of the Commitment Change Order' with a specific verb and resource. Further clarifies the use case: 'Use this when you already know which commitment change order you want and need its full field set.' This distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete siblings.

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: 'when you already know which commitment change order you want and need its full field set.' Also instructs to resolve id with the matching list tool first and notes the 1/2 tier configuration limitation. Does not name specific alternative tools, but the guidance is clear.

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