Unassign Sensors From Materials

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's mutation claim is consistent — no contradiction. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the downstream effect (materials stop reporting sensor data), default-value wiring, success return ('modified sensor'), and specific failure modes (401 token expired, 403 missing permission, 404 unresolved id).

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 purpose and every sentence carries information: behavior, consequence, PATCH semantics, defaults, return value, error handling, and endpoint routing. The only redundancy is 'Required parameters: company_id, project_id, resource_guids', which merely duplicates the schema's required array.

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 tool with no output schema and three documented parameters, the description is remarkably thorough: it explains the return value ('modified sensor'), error payload semantics, defaulting behavior, and the canonical endpoint. The only notable gap is that the description does not clarify the expected format of resource_guids entries, which would help an agent construct valid input.

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% with each parameter described ('URL path parameter', 'JSON request body field'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by clarifying that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted — nuancing the schema's 'required' flag — and by restating the required parameters, though it doesn't specify the element format for resource_guids.

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 specific action ('Removes the sensor association from one or more materials') and its observable consequence ('The materials will no longer report sensor data after unassignment'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like unassign_the_attribute_items_from_the_wbs_codes by scoping to sensor/material associations in the Materials Management domain.

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 strong operational context: PATCH semantics ('Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values'), explicit defaulting of company_id/project_id via procore_set_config, and a required-parameter list. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use cases or alternative tools, so it misses the 'explicit alternatives' bar.

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