Show Specification Section Revision

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: it is 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore,' company_id/project_id default to values set by procore_set_config, and it enumerates common HTTP error cases (401, 403, 404) with their likely causes. This goes well beyond structured metadata.

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 well-organized with a logical flow: purpose, usage, defaults, return type, side-effect safety, error handling, required parameters, and API location. It is slightly verbose (six sentences) but every sentence contributes valuable information. It could be tightened by merging the endpoint and required-parameter lines, but overall it earns its length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's statement that it 'Returns a single JSON object describing the specification section revision' satisfies return-value expectations. It also covers necessary context: parameter defaults, id resolution prerequisite, error payloads, API version and path. Given the tool's moderate complexity and strong annotations, the description is fully adequate.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema: the defaulting behavior of company_id and project_id from procore_set_config, and the requirement that id must refer to an existing parent record resolved via the list tool. These clarifications help agents use parameters correctly.

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 a clear verb+resource statement: 'returns the specification section revision.' It further clarifies the precise use case ('when you already know which specification section revision you want and need its full field set'), distinguishing it from list-oriented tools. The API version (v2.1) is also specified, differentiating it from the v1.0 sibling.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you already know which specification section revision you want and need its full field set.' It also provides a prerequisite step ('resolve it with the matching list tool first') and explains configuration defaults. However, it does not explicitly name alternative show tools (e.g., v1.0) or list tools, so differentiation from specific siblings is implied rather than stated.

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