Add Project To Group

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

The description discloses non-idempotence ('calling it again creates another record'), error statuses (401, 403, 404), and defaulting behavior, adding context beyond annotations. However, the incorrect 'Creates the project' sentence undermines transparency by providing false behavioral information about what the tool does.

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 the primary purpose and includes several useful details, but it contains a redundant and misleading sentence ('Creates the project...') and repeats required parameter information already in the schema, which detracts from conciseness.

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 required parameters, the description does explain success response, error codes, defaults, and endpoint context. However, the conflicting creation statement makes the overall behavior ambiguous, and it does not clarify what exactly is returned (list of Group IDs vs project ID), so the agent may be misled about the response format.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted, and it explicitly lists required parameters. This goes beyond the schema.

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 'Add a Project to a Group' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like remove_project_from_group. However, the later statement 'Creates the project and returns it with its new id (HTTP 201); calling it again creates another record' is misleading and contradicts the add-to-group behavior, confusing the tool with a project creation tool.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_project or other group membership tools. It only notes default parameter behavior and error codes, which are operational details, not usage guidance.

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