Show Commitment Change Order Batch

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 beyond this by explicitly stating 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and detailing failure behavior: 'Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve.' This enriches the behavioral context without contradicting the 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 a single paragraph but is well-structured: starts with purpose, then usage guidance, parameter notes, return type, read-only guarantee, failure modes, and API endpoint. Each sentence conveys distinct information, though it is slightly dense. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to minor redundancy (read-only is repeated after annotations).

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers key operational aspects: when to use, how to resolve the id, what is returned ('a single JSON object'), safety ('Read-only'), and error scenarios. It also includes the API endpoint. The only notable gap is the inconsistency between 'project_id defaults when omitted' and the schema marking it as required, but this is an edge case rather than a completeness failure.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by noting that 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' and that 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' This helps the agent handle parameters correctly despite the schema marking project_id as required.

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 opens with 'Show the details of the Commitment Change Order Batch', using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from list variants by stating 'Use this when you already know which commitment change order batch you want and need its full field set', making it clear this is a single-record fetch, not a list operation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this when you already know which commitment change order batch you want and need its full field set.' It also instructs to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' for the id parameter, which is valuable prerequisite guidance. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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