Add Additional Assignees To A Workflow Instance (Project)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it returns HTTP 201 and the created object, which gives some behavioral context. However, the internal contradiction between 'adds assignees' and 'creates a new Workflows' creates confusion, so it does not fully leverage the annotation baseline.

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 relatively short but includes the confusing sentence about creating a new workflow, which detracts from conciseness. It could be improved by removing the misleading line and keeping only factual statements.

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's complexity (9 parameters, 7 required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what additional assignees are, how 'required' affects behavior, or what the response object looks like beyond being 'created'. The contradictory statement further reduces 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description lists required parameters but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it adds additional assignees to a step occurrence on a project workflow instance. The verb and resource are specific, and the presence of a sibling tool for company-level distinguishes it. However, the confusing phrase 'Use this to create a new Workflows in Procore' undermines clarity slightly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists required parameters but does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it differs from other tools like the company-level version.

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