Add Role To Project

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it creates a new record each time (non-idempotent, consistent with idempotentHint=false), returns HTTP 201, and details common failure statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explains defaulting behavior for company_id and project_id. This adds specific context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 a bit longer than ideal but well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence contributes meaningful information: action, return value, defaults, non-idempotency, error behavior, and endpoint. No filler or redundancy, though the endpoint could be considered optional.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, return value (Role UUID), non-idempotent behavior, failures, and parameter defaults. It does not detail the full response object, but this is acceptable given no output schema exists and the tool appears simple.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly listing required parameters and explaining that company_id and project_id default to values from procore_set_config when omitted—something not present in the schema. This helps the agent understand parameter behavior beyond type and description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assign a Person to a Role in a Project.' This clearly states the action and distinguishes it from related sibling tools like create_project_role, delete_project_role, and remove_role_from_project. The endpoint and 'Creates the role' further confirm the operation.

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 useful context—defaults from procore_set_config, required parameters, and common error scenarios—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied by the purpose, but no direct comparison or exclusionary guidance is given.

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