Show Recycled Action Plan Template Approver

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore', describes error payloads with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404), and explains the id must resolve to an existing parent record. While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, the description enriches safety and error expectations.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose, usage, parameter defaults, return value, read-only guarantee, error handling, required parameters, API category, and endpoint. Each sentence adds value and the most important information (purpose and usage) is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 return type ('single JSON object'), error handling, endpoint, required parameters, and resolution via list tool. However, the contradictory statement about project_id being optional when the schema requires it creates a completeness gap in parameter guidance. Despite this, the description is otherwise thorough for a simple show operation with no output schema.

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, but the description introduces an internal contradiction: it says 'project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config when omitted' yet later lists 'Required parameters: project_id, id' and the schema marks both as required. This conflicting guidance undermines reliable parameter usage. The id resolution hint is useful, but the project_id contradiction lowers the score.

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 'Retrieves a single recycled action plan template approver in the specified Procore project', which provides a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_recycled_action_plan_template_approvers' and 'show_action_plan_template_approver' by emphasizing the single-record retrieval and recycled status.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when you already know which recycled action plan template approver you want and need its full field set' and advises resolving the id using 'the matching list tool first'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and identifies the prerequisite, making it easy for an agent to select this tool over alternatives.

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