Show Recycled Action

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description explains it changes nothing, details common HTTP failure statuses (401/403/404), notes the project_id default, and states the return is a single JSON object. This is rich, actionable behavioral 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then flows naturally through usage, defaults, return, safety, errors, and endpoint. It is longer than strictly necessary—repeating the required parameter list and endpoint—but every sentence adds some value.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately covers return shape, error behavior, parameter defaults, and the prerequisite of resolving the id. However, the optional incident_id parameter is never mentioned, and the project_id default/required conflict leaves a notable gap.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description introduces a contradiction: it says project_id defaults to the procore_set_config value when omitted, while the schema lists project_id as required and the description itself also calls it required. The guidance to resolve id with the list tool first is useful, but the conflicting project_id information undermines reliability.

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 returns details of a single soft-deleted incident action from the Recycle Bin. This distinguishes it from related siblings like list_recycled_actions or show_action by specifying the exact resource and scope.

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?

It explicitly says to use this when you already know the recycled action and need its full field set, and instructs resolving the id with the matching list tool first. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong.

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