Show Workflow Bulk Replace Request

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the return payload type ('a single JSON object'), error behavior ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status' with common 401/403/404 codes), and the defaulting behavior of company_id. This adds significant behavioral context not present in the structured 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 organized with a clear opening purpose, usage guidance, parameter notes, and error behavior, each sentence contributing unique information. While it includes the full endpoint, it is not verbose or redundant given the complexity.

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 two-parameter read-only GET endpoint with no output schema, the description fully covers return format, error semantics, and parameter sourcing, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 as URL path identifiers with 100% coverage. The description supplements this by explaining that company_id defaults to the value from procore_set_config and that id must reference an existing record to be resolved via the list tool, adding practical semantics beyond the schema.

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 the tool 'Returns a workflows bulk replace request' and specifically scopes it to 'when you already know which workflow bulk replace request you want and need its full field set.' This distinguishes it from sibling list/create/update tools.

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 instructs to use this tool when you already know the specific request and need its full field set, and directs users to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first' to obtain a valid id. It also notes the company_id default, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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