Add Company User To Project

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: non-idempotency ('calling it again creates another record'), HTTP 201 response with new id, error payload semantics with common status codes (401, 403, 404), and the payload nesting transformation. No contradiction with 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 contains valuable information but is cluttered with the markdown heading '#### Created Response' and trailing boilerplate. It could be more tightly organized while still conveying the key details.

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 no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, defaults, idempotency, error handling, and expected response. Minor gaps remain, such as the unclear 'Created Response' formatting and lack of explicit permission_template_id guidance, keeping it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: project_id default from config, id resolution requirement, and top-level argument vs nested 'user' payload handling. However, it does not elaborate on permission_template_id, so it stays at 4.

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 opening sentence 'Adds a user from the Company Directory to the Project Directory' uses a specific verb and clearly identifies both source and target resources. The endpoint and API reference further distinguish it from related tools like bulk_add_company_users_to_projects or create_project_user.

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 usage context: resolve the id with a list tool first, project_id defaults from procore_set_config, and calling again creates another record. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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