Add A New Markup

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing admin permission requirements, explaining that the tool nests fields under 'markup' in the payload, detailing non-idempotent creation behavior with HTTP 201, and listing common error codes (401, 403, 404). These are valuable behavioral traits not fully captured by the annotations alone.

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 comprehensive but somewhat lengthy. It is front-loaded with purpose and each sentence contributes useful information, though the sentence about update constraints for markups is slightly tangential for a creation tool. Overall, it is well-structured and not excessively verbose.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior (returns new id with HTTP 201) and error handling. It also includes required parameters, authorization context, and the Procore API reference. With the schema handling parameter details, the description is complete for agent invocation.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 13 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds only a general note about passing fields as top-level arguments and lists the required parameters, which duplicates schema information. No additional per-parameter meaning is provided.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('new Markup to the holder'). It distinguishes from sibling markup tools by explaining it creates a new markup, while siblings handle retrieving, modifying, or deleting markups.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (Contract and Potential Change Order tools) and implies non-idempotency by noting that calling it again creates another record. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use modify_an_existing_markup for updates,' but the distinction is implicit and easy to infer from the tool name.

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