Add A New Markup

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

Annotations indicate it's a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false) operation. The description adds that admin permissions are required and that a success response returns the created object (HTTP 201). However, it does not discuss consequences of creation (e.g., whether it can be reversed) or the behavior in case of errors, making it moderately transparent.

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 verbose and includes irrelevant or erroneous information (the contract creation references). It is not front-loaded with essential purpose; the misleading line appears midway. It wastes words on update constraints that are tangential to the creation action.

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 the tool has 13 parameters (6 required) and nested objects but no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating the return value (created object with 201 status). However, it does not explain the structure of the return object or how to handle the nested parameters. It also fails to clarify the erroneous contract reference, reducing completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description merely lists required parameters without adding significant new meaning beyond what is in the schema. It provides no additional context for nested objects like 'compound' or 'markup_conditions'.

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 starts by stating 'Add a new Markup to the holder' which is correct, but later includes the erroneous phrase 'Use this to create a new Contracts in Procore' and 'Creates a new Contracts', which directly contradicts the tool's purpose and could mislead an AI agent. This severe inconsistency undermines clarity.

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 mentions the tools it supports (Contract and Potential Change Order) and admin permission requirement, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like modify_an_existing_markup or remove_an_existing_markup, which are present in sibling tools. The update constraint for PCO markups is noted but primarily relevant to modification, not creation.

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